Levelling Up Rural Britain

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of levelling up rural Britain.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I am delighted to see one of the new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team here today, as in my mind far too much of levelling up rural Britain is seen to be the home of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, yet the economic challenges of rural communities are immense, and the increase in the cost of living disproportionately impacts these communities, with their reliance on private cars for transport, longer journeys and older, poorly insulated housing stock, often in exposed and windy locations. I am going to call on my own experience in Devon to illustrate my words today, but I recognise that these issues are replicated around the country.

Much of rural Britain also has productivity issues. The excellent “Levelling up the rural economy”, produced in conjunction with the Country Land and Business Association, goes into great detail on these issues, many of which relate to connectivity. I took the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for broadband and digital communication there when I arrived in Westminster, because getting broadband done was second only to getting Brexit done for my rural North Devon constituency. It is hard for a community to be as productive as it might be if it has to wait for the circle of doom to clear before being able to connect to the internet.

Devon and Somerset have been blighted by many issues with the connection programme, but I take this chance to thank Connecting Devon and Somerset for improving our connectivity. I am delighted to see more improvements and more policy areas, and I also thank Openreach for its roll-out of broadband in rural Britain. However, the road map for rolling out broadband simply does not work in a rural environment in the same way as it does in an urban one. Our policies need a reality check before being released into the countryside.

I am grateful particularly to Openreach for the work it has done in connecting my constituency, but the magnitude of the task is huge. The Openreach senior team met me in Barnstaple early in my time as an MP and asked for a challenging part of my patch to connect, and it has done a sterling job connecting the stunning Lynton and Lynmouth, with fibre now running down the funicular railway. While residents and I are hugely grateful, what Openreach describes as a “rural project” is my fourth largest town. In rural Britain, the expectation is that everything is small, but the distances certainly are not, and connecting remote farms remains a huge challenge that the current schemes will not deliver in the timeframe we need for rural productivity gains to drive our rural economy.

I take this opportunity to thank the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport team and Building Digital UK for their engagement on this topic. I know that solutions are not easy, and while I sound like a record stuck in a groove talking about rural broadband, it is not right that the countryside is left behind in this way. We are aware that we have a productivity gap across all the south-west, with large numbers of part-time workers, partly driven by an ageing population, the seasonality of our tourism industry and in particular by a skills gap. We are desperately short of skilled workers. Devon has the lowest proportion of degree-educated 20 to 30-year-olds in the country, and much of that is driven by the extreme house prices and the cost of getting to work from somewhere cheaper.

Low aspiration is also a feature of much of northern Devon, generating low social mobility. When we peer into why that might be the case, so much to my mind comes back to distance. We are more than 60 miles from a university, and there is also the challenge of just getting to school or college. When rural schools have a catchment area the size of Birmingham, it is no wonder that the policies that work well in Birmingham, for example, might not translate so well to North Devon.

For example, school transport is the only way that most children can get to school, so after-school activities are not accessible to far too many of them. Schools would like to extend the school day, but that is seemingly not possible. One very rural school aspired to have a sixth form that offered only science, technology, engineering and maths, so students could continue to access 16-plus education using the school transport network, but that was not allowed because city-centric education policies determine that a school has to have 12 subjects—and so it goes on.

We have to adapt our policies to rural locations. We must listen to the excellent headteachers who run those schools and who believe that they are better placed to manage budgets and deliver services, such as special educational needs and school transport, than our distant and disinterested county council. Levelling up is all about equality of opportunity, but that simply does not exist for far too many youngsters growing up in the country, given the lack of flexibility afforded to too many rural schools.

The sheer size of Devon makes it look generally average in many areas, but as I have described in the House before, that hides huge disparities, particularly between north and south. The average that is applied to education for large education authorities has a disproportionate impact on remote rural communities trying to access additional funding and drive up skills, which would hopefully begin to tackle some of the too-often-seen rural poverty.

Devon has the longest road network in the country by 2,000 miles. Everyone who lives in rural Britain travels huge distances, which has an impact on many other services. Social care in particular, following an urban model, costs a fortune in rural locations because teams have to travel huge distances between visits. With fuel costs soaring, councils urgently need help with budgets.

Having spoken with the chief exec of my hospital on Friday, however, we both feel that it is not just money that is needed; we need to rethink social care in rural communities. Even if we had the money, we do not have any staff to work in social care, mostly because of the complete lack of affordable housing. Our health service has 20% vacancies for similar reasons. We are aware of surgeons unable to take up posts at our hospital because of the lack of housing that even they can afford. There is the frustration of being home to what is defined as a small—it is also the most remote—mainland hospital. It is detailed in our manifesto as one of the 40 in the hospital programme and the first phase is to deliver key worker housing. For that project not to be progressing at pace is hugely disappointing.

There is a lack of joined-up thinking across Departments when tackling rural issues. About a quarter of hospital beds in my patch are taken up by those in need of social care, but no one is available to provide it, so they cannot go home. It is hard to deliver health in such a vast setting. I know that ambulance wait times are a challenge, but when the distances that ambulances have to travel are so great, just getting to people takes time. For people to then get to hospital and find that they cannot get in—I have no words.

Similarly, I cannot build the houses that we desperately need or ensure that the properties we have are not left empty for half the year as second homes or holiday lets. I would be doing my constituents a disservice if, while talking about health, I did not mention that Devon is a dental desert, as are many other parts of rural Britain. Despite forwarding numerous innovative solutions, we have heard nothing back. This is not the place to go into that in detail, but the Department of Health and Social Care should also look at how rural health outcomes can be levelled up.

Rurality plays out in many other ways. Many Westminster decisions are based on the density of population, which means that we will always miss out on funding decisions. Active travel is a case in point. My county council submitted six schemes to the last round of funding, the second ranked of which was the Tarka trail in my patch. Although that is more for leisure than commuter journeys, the scheme is considered vital for the safety of cyclists on the trail and is the missing link in a hugely popular tourist destination, because it would connect the north and south coasts of Devon. Despite being my county council’s second choice, the Department for Transport gave funding to the five other schemes, which are in towns and cities, and excluded the only rural one.

Buses are also tricky and we are desperately short of public transport. If the county council has its way and the threats made by its leader come to pass, it will cut all our services. Again, this is about not just funding: buses are too big for the number of passengers in many villages who want to use them. We need to find innovative solutions beyond funding to rural transport if we ever want to decarbonise our journeys and facilitate affordable routes to work. We also need to recognise that urban models do not always translate to rural journeys.

I worry that many of the potential solutions to levelling up rural Britain lie with our local councils. Unfortunately, in Devon, there are many issues in this space. To my mind, the urban policy of mayors does not translate well to rural Britain. From listening to what some of them get up to when I am up here, I am not sure how well the policy works full stop. What we really need to help level up rural Britain is more local decision making.

In Devon, we have far too many councils, with one county council, two unitaries, eight districts and, in North Devon alone, 58 town and parish councils. Trying to get something as simple as painting a lamp post done is near impossible in some town centres, as no one knows who owns it and it is always a different council’s problem. The separation of highways from planning decisions is so fundamentally flawed it is desperate. We need devolution of decision making, and we need it more locally. Our county council is so big and distant, and it takes decisions with no consultation of local communities or their MP—I found out yesterday that part of my road scheme is being cancelled.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Might I urge on my hon. Friend and Devon colleagues what we did in Dorset? Creating two unitaries has made decision making far more streamlined, and it has made the connection between Members of Parliament, councillors and officers much easier. We know exactly who is doing what, and we can get things done.

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that such discussions might be forthcoming in my county.

My district council officers, like so many, worked their socks off to try to deliver levelling-up bids. It was the smaller bids in rural locations that so often missed out in the first round of funding. I will take this opportunity to plug Ilfracombe’s bid, against a planning backdrop of no staff and multiple district councils all battling the same issues.

Why is this important? Of the 10 most economically vulnerable parts of Devon, five are in my North Devon constituency—three in Ilfracombe and two in Barnstaple. The response of the county council leader when discussing possible unitary groupings was that no one wanted Barnstaple. That is entirely clear from the way we are treated by our county council.

However, let me take this opportunity to thank the numerous councillors who do such great work in our local communities. Fifty-eight councils is a lot. Many of them are marvellous, with great rural solutions from hard-working volunteers; others make Dibley look well-functioning and progressive. Changes we made to the monitoring of parish councils make it near impossible to remove a parish councillor, whatever they do. I hope that can be revisited. If only we could remove some of the layers of bureaucracy and avoid duplication, and find better ways to share best practice in a rural environment, we could achieve so much more.

I have touched on the housing challenges in North Devon and so many rural and coastal communities. The influx of second homes and short-term holiday lets, and the lack of regulation in the market, makes housing the No. 1 challenge for so many communities like North Devon. Doing nothing is simply no longer an option. The fabric of our society cannot survive with no one available to work because there is nowhere for them to live. I covered this issue in detail only last week, so I will spare the House today, but I very much hope that the proposed amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will be adopted to begin to tackle these issues, alongside the long-awaited Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport consultation on registration schemes for Airbnbs.

I have chosen not to speak today about our beautiful environment and our fabulous farmers, who have numerous levelling-up challenges of their own. I very much hope that next week’s announcement on environmental land management schemes will be favourable to their finances, and I hope that colleagues will tackle these issues. I wanted to highlight some of the realities of rural living, behind the chocolate-box façade. We have to find ways to join up our thinking here at Westminster and recognise that, if we want to level up rural Britain, it is not just the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that can deliver that. Not only do councils clearly need funding to tackle the additional costs that rurality brings, but their structures need urgent reform.

The now Prime Minister was a signatory to the application for the debate while he was in between jobs, so to speak. From speaking with him last night, I have confidence that rural Britain will be better cared for, and that levelling up will reach into our remote, beautiful communities. When I came to this place in 2019 and first spoke about levelling up Ilfracombe, which is home to two of the poorest wards in Devon, I hoped that levelling up would, by this point, have delivered more than just an asylum hotel. I will continue to champion the need for levelling up rural Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), and I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on instigating this welcome debate. As several hon. Members have noted—I do not mean this as knocking copy—the only Labour voice that we will hear is from the Front Bench, although I have no doubt it will be able and articulate. I gently make the point to the Minister—hon. Members will recognise this—that Conservative Members and our party cannot forever take for granted the support of our rural communities. We need to pay back their support.

Levelling up is of course welcome, but it needs to be broken into digestible chunks. We need a set of levelling-up initiatives for post-industrial urban areas and a set that features the coastal areas that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned and the rural areas that are clearly the kernel of the debate. I also strongly echo the cri de coeur of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon that it is time the Minister’s Department put in place regulations whereby town and parish councillors can be removed from office if they are not doing their job. I have a case in my constituency that is a perpetual headache and the council can do nothing about it.

As hon. Members have said, many people visiting rural areas across our country would be forgiven for thinking that all is well. We do have deprivation and need but it is not located in one area or ward, and because we cannot do that—we cannot take people to one place—it makes the delivery of improvements harder. We need some sort of rural tsar, or perhaps a rural squire might be better, to co-ordinate cross-Government rural proofing.

On the funding formula, this is not a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul debate. It was Mr Blair’s Government who took money away from the county shires and gave it to the urban areas. We need additional funds, a fairer formula or a rural proof formula to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gets the slice of chocolate cake that he desires; I must say that seed cake is my favourite and I would like a large slice. We need a review of the funding rubric and of the assessment of rural deprivation. We must strive for parity or equality—who could be against that? A child educated in my constituency requires as much money to be spent on their primary or secondary education as one in central Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham or Southampton, because education is a UK plc initiative.

I turn briefly to the Dorset Council area. Some 29.4% of its population is over 65, compared with 18.5% across England. One in 12 of the population are over 80 and that is due to increase by 10% by 2032. Being rural, as many hon. Members have mentioned, the cost of delivering services, such as school and care travel, is higher than in urban areas. Some 46% of its residents live in the most-deprived areas for access to services in England.

Despite all that, Dorset Council receives only £2.5 million a year in the rural services delivery grant. Some 85% of the council’s expenditure is generated directly by council tax, compared with the average unitary authority, which has to find only 65%. It receives no revenue support grant where others get 4%. In 2019, the adult social care costs of hospital discharges were £4.1 million; this year, they are £15 million with no concomitant increase.

It is not just in local government that we need to take rurality more into account; the rubrics for the Environment Agency, road funding, the police and, as I have mentioned, schools also need to be refreshed. To take the Environment Agency, it is easy to make the business case stand up for spending £200,000 on a flood relief project that will benefit 10,000 people in the community. A scheme that has the same costs and delivers the same qualitative benefits for a community, albeit a much smaller or more sparsely populated and further flung one, however, will never pass the rubric assessment because it has been written in Whitehall by people who—dare I say?—have experience of living only in and around central London.

Many have mentioned that rural plc needs broadband and phone signal. We also need grid capacity. If anything is holding up development, it is the grid. It is a sad indictment that there is not a single consented business park in the Dorset Council area that could be fully developed out today, only because there is not capacity in the grid to provide electricity. Sturminster Newton in my constituency would like some sustainable new housing, but it cannot be delivered because of an absence of electricity.

Finally, probably the thorniest issue—I do not touch on it now because I am in my last few seconds and no one can intervene—is access to workforce. I have already said that we have an older workforce. We have virtually zero unemployment in North Dorset; fortunately, that has been the case for many years. Will the Minister make sure that, when the Home Office is sculpting immigration policy, over which we perfectly properly have control in this place, it has a focus on the needs of the rural economy, to ensure that farming, innovation and the entrepreneurs of our rural areas can create investment, make jobs, pay into the Exchequer, create the opportunity of aspiration, and therefore level up rural Britain?

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I hope that the House will allow me to make some comments, although I am at risk of repeating what they said. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), whose quest to hold this important debate we all thoroughly backed.

It is clear to me that this House does not give enough time to debate and discuss the rural issues of the day. We have some important questions to ask ourselves. Why is levelling up not focused on rural areas in the same way it is on urban areas? Why does rural hardship not seem to matter in the same way as urban poverty? Why do rural jobs attract less pay than those in urban areas? Why does Transport for London get £1.7 billion of Government money to bail it out yet Dorset Council gets hardly anything—especially when we have the worst frequency rail line in the country? I just wanted to let the Minister know that.

I do not want the Treasury Green Book to prioritise rural areas; I want it to be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom, including rural Dorset. Why do sixth-formers— 16 and 17-year-olds—in rural Dorset have to pay to get on the school bus, when those youngsters do not have to do so in urban areas? In certain pockets of West Dorset and, indeed, the wider Dorset area, social mobility is among the worst in the country. The real levelling up required in this country is in rural Britain, which is why I am so delighted to contribute to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset clearly articulated some good statistics. I also have them in my speech—he has pinched them—but let me focus on a couple. It is totally unacceptable to me and my constituents —and, I think, to my constituency neighbours—that we have one of the highest council taxes in the country but zero revenue support grant, yet in places such as inner London there are boroughs with the lowest council tax in the country that receive some £24 million in revenue support grant.

[Simon Hoare]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we also have hanging over us the spectre of negative revenue support grant, whereby the Government might actually tell Dorset Council that it needs to pay some money back? Where that money would come from I have no idea. Does he agree that that would just add, for want of a better phrase, insult to injury?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), as all my colleagues have, on securing this debate, given the importance and the salience of the issues that she and all colleagues have highlighted.

We have had a good debate that shows the breadth and depth of the discussion and the importance of levelling up to so many colleagues across the country. We have had contributions from the middle of Scotland all the way down to the bottom of the south-west, which demonstrates the importance of this subject to so many people and communities across the country.

The Government agree, and in February—I was not in the Department at the time—we published the levelling-up White Paper, the common consensus on which is that it is one of the deepest and most profound analyses of the challenges of improving communities across the country. The White Paper has been welcomed by most independent commentators as a serious piece of work on which serious policy can be and is being delivered for the long-term good of all our communities.

The White Paper’s central thesis accepts that talent is distributed equally across the communities of all hon. Members who have spoken today, and beyond, but that opportunity is not necessarily equally distributed. It is the role of Government to seek to rebalance that distribution reasonably and proportionately to offer opportunity, prosperity and pride across all communities.

We have been clear that change will not come overnight. This is a long-term issue that has been at the fore for many Governments, of all rosette colours, over many decades. The point of the levelling-up White Paper, and of all the work done before, during and after it, is to show that the Government are absolutely serious about making progress. The contributions of my hon. Friends demonstrate the seriousness of the work already being done on levelling up not only in rural communities but elsewhere. We will remain committed to that work. Within that paper, for rural communities and for others, we have committed by 2030 to improve living standards, research and development in all regions, transport infrastructure, digital connectivity, education and skills, health, wellbeing, pride in place—this is about the vital importance people place on and the attachment people feel to their communities—and housing, and to reduce crime and ensure there are devolution opportunities. So many of my colleagues have referred to that and it is so important.

This debate is also important to me as a representative of a semi-rural constituency. I understand many of the issues and the points highlighted by colleagues because I have the pleasure and privilege of representing so many colleagues in rural areas. The beauty that those areas offer and the challenges they face have been articulated by colleagues from across the House in the past few hours. I represent part of a national park, 41 different towns, villages and hamlets, and dozens of parish councils, so I understand the challenges and opportunities that rural areas offer—so many colleagues have articulated those so well. Let me continue my five-and-a-half-year quest to read into the Hansard record the names of all of my towns, villages and hamlets by saying that only on Saturday I visited the hamlet of Wigley, which has one of the smallest schools in Derbyshire, if not in the whole of the UK. It has just been successful, thanks to the headteacher and all the staff, in opening some additional space that will allow it to increase the number of pupils it supports every year going forward. I congratulate it on that.

This demonstrates that we must talk about levelling up not just in the traditional areas where there has been more discussion about it—places such as North East Derbyshire or areas northward—but, as has been highlighted by colleagues, in every part of the country. We need to have this discussion in rural areas, semi-rural areas and elsewhere, because there will be pockets of deprivation in every part of our communities and it is vital that we try to resolve, improve and mitigate those.

I could not disagree more profoundly with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he seemed to be indicating that simply because colleagues come from an affluent geography they are unable to make any statements about this whatsoever. That could not be more wrong, and it shows a complete misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the distribution of the challenges in the UK. It also shows a lack of understanding of what the UK Government are trying to do through their levelling-up initiatives—this is something that the Scottish National party has failed to do repeatedly while it has been in government since 2007.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the Minister also confirm that nobody on our side of the House urged that we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul? It was not a question of taking money away from urban and giving it to rural areas; it was a cri de coeur for potentially more money or a more equitable and rurally sensitive funding rubric. It was not about taking money away; the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised a most frightful slur.

[Lee Rowley]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. What he said demonstrates the level of nuance and depth of the debate on our side of the House and the frankly cartoonish response put forward by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 6

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I will make three very quick points, if I may. First, I underscore the point made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), that this issue is much better dealt with by legislation, not by regulation. It is absolutely crucial that there is proper debate on and scrutiny of the terminology to ensure that all quarters of the House are happy.

Secondly, the definition of a victim is clearly imperative, and no terrorist should benefit. That would undermine entirely the credibility of the scheme, and doubtless would put off an awful lot of people from applying to it, so distasteful would they find it to be associated in drawing something from a fund from which those not entitled to it, at least in a moral sense, will also seek to draw.

My third and final point is that we always think of victims in the narrow definition of those who live in Northern Ireland itself. It is a point always made to me by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon): some of the victims of the troubles live on the mainland and we should never forget them in our deliberations. While events were more sporadic and dispelled than the troubles in Northern Ireland, their suffering is none the less serious, and we would dishonour them if we did not include them in our thinking.

Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I commend him and the people of Lichfield for maintaining those civic traditions, and of course I agree that they are an important part of our civic society. Although what we are considering today is technical in nature, the underlying substance of what we are doing is vital to ensure that local civic traditions are not lost when local government reorganises and they can be passed appropriately to the right local civic bodies. I am delighted that we are enabling that for the people of the areas that will benefit from the order.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and his team for the work they have done in support of Dorset’s local government reorganisation. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is apposite. When proposals for change are first mooted, people often say, “This will throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will lose our sense of history and place.” The fact that these things can be retained in a modern reformed setting, melding the old and the new, is an important message that I hope the Minister carries forward to other councils.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for these measures. He embodies the best of the traditional and the modern world, ensuring that local areas embrace the future with efficiency, a dynamic approach to local government and a desire to serve their constituents better, while retaining the great traditions of those areas. I am delighted that he is here to see that come into practice.

Moving on to slightly more mundane—but no less important—matters, the order fourthly makes provision to ensure that the local government pension fund maintained by Dorset County Council, along with all the property rights and liabilities in respect of that fund, will vest in the new Dorset Council. That fund will be the pension fund for employees of that council and of the new BCP council, as well as employees of all other employers in that fund.

Fifthly, the order makes provisions to amend the Weymouth Port Health Authority Order 2017, so that references to the joint board made up of the abolished authorities of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, Purbeck District Council and West Dorset District Council will instead refer to Dorset Council, which will be the sole authority for the area following reorganisation. Finally, the order makes provision for the existing social housing finance and housing revenue account arrangements to continue for the new councils of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, East Suffolk, and Somerset West and Taunton.

All the provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils, which Parliament has already approved. They will ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements, and continued effective local government in the areas covered. I commend the order to the Committee.

Draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (modification of the local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 General Committees

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It might come as a disappointment to my hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow Minister that I do not intend to reprise my mammoth, 55-minute address in support of the reorganisation of Dorset councils. I just want to make a couple of remarks.

I know the Buckinghamshire area reasonably well, having served for three years as a county councillor on the neighbouring authority of Oxfordshire. I shall address my remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I guess the spur to reorganise broadly replicates the spur that forced Dorset to seek reorganisation, which was better value for money for the taxpayer and the delivery of quality services at a time when—I say this as a vice-president of the LGA—the local government family has sustained a significant and sustained financial hit since 2010. Some 45% of its income has been lost, and that has often acted as an impetus to find new ways of doing things.

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but we had this in Dorset as well. District councils buddy up and work closely together. They screw the maximum amount of savings out of operational costs, but the pressure for savings and greater efficiencies continues, creating the need to re-engineer the local government architecture.

There is little or no doubt that with any change to local government—I empathise entirely with the viewpoint of my right hon. Friend—people feel a strong emotional tie to their district councils, particularly if they have been good ones. However, I think the Minister is right and that the general thrust of the Government’s approach is right. First, Her Majesty’s Government look for grassroots-up proposals and not top-down enforcement. That is really important because one size clearly does not fit all. There will be different models for different geographies.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Having sat on the LGA, my hon. Friend will know that the LGA guidance said that this particular enforcement from central Government was intended to be used as a last resort, and that the power to remove functions from local authorities without local consent would be used sparingly. With respect, Buckinghamshire is very different from Dorset, and the change is being imposed on Buckinghamshire. As for the savings, a new entity is being created, so most of the workers will have to be TUPE-ed across, and the savings need to be looked at very carefully because they might not be achieved.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on the latter point. On the idea that the powers were to be used “sparingly”, I would say define “sparingly”. My definition would be “not very often”. I am not aware that the Department and the Government have used that power very often. I therefore suggest it has been used sparingly.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

She smiles so beguilingly. Go on.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

My hon. Friend is always charming. In this case, why should Buckinghamshire be singled out as the only one? Why should it be us? Surely we have a voice and a right to be heard? The residents that voted for two local authorities have a right to be heard, but that is being denied to them.

[Simon Hoare]

I think that is probably a question for the Minister, but in anything that my right hon. Friend read out from earlier correspondence either here or in the other place in reference to the sparing use, I did not hear her say, “but never Buckinghamshire”.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Buckinghamshire is the only one.

[Simon Hoare]

Buckinghamshire might be the only one, but the point still applies.

Mr Austin, I do not want to fall into my trap of speaking for 55 minutes. All I wanted to say to the Minister was all power to his elbow, because I think he is rightly focused on assisting local government to chart a way through in order to deliver even better and more efficient services to their taxpayers. He is absolutely right to recognise that universal support or unanimity will never be found in these things. No one council or third party that has a locus in the process should have a right of veto.

I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham that, although I understand the knee-jerk reaction to dash off for a judicial review, I know, having had one of our councils in Dorset do exactly that against legal advice, wasting both time and precious public money, that it is not something to be entered into lightly. I say to her that of course such proposals stir emotion and great ties of loyalty to a certain geography, and very often the very worst case scenario is afeared, but we go into our Dorset unitary elections in May, where we have two councils coming forward—because the geography and the scale worked for that—and the organisation and the shadow authority have been working incredibly hard to get it right.

Although the decision may be a disappointment to a number of district councils within the county—disappointment that I understand and with which I empathise—I would suggest that now is the time for everybody with good will towards the electors of Buckinghamshire to put their shoulder to the wheel to make it work, and to deliver for those people who send us either to this place or to the council chamber to serve their needs and best interests.

Local Government Funding Settlement

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

On EU funds, we will be consulting in due course in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund—the UK-wide arrangements that will replace the structural funds. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to make representations on that. I acknowledge, yes, that some funding is received through the existing funds, but there is now the opportunity for the UK to shape this and also to deal with some of the bureaucracy to ensure that more money goes to the frontline.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that with the home-grown proposals for the unitary councils of Dorset, we have been at the cutting edge of modernisation and delivering value for money and quality services. Will he say a little more in relation to Dorset, specifically, regarding the outcome of his announcement on negative revenue support grant and the very welcome news about the rural services delivery grant?

[James Brokenshire]

Negative RSG will be eliminated, as I have indicated. My hon. Friend will see in the different schedules that will be published the implications of the rural services delivery grant. He will also notice, in relation to Dorset, the statutory instrument that has been laid in relation to council tax harmonisation, which I am sure will give him all the clarity he will need for his council for the future.

Shale Gas Development

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mark Menzies]

I do want to make some progress; I am three quarters of the way down the first page of my speech and I have been very generous in giving way.

Along with many colleagues here today, I have made submissions to both consultations, making clear my constituents’ opposition to the proposals, which is a position that is echoed whenever I speak to colleagues from across the House.

I have called this debate to discuss the issue further, as well as to raise the general matter of local involvement in major decisions such as the approval of shale gas sites. Under permitted development, proposals for shale gas exploration are subject to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is administered by the mineral rights authority for the area in which the proposed development will be located. The decisions that are taken are based on the national planning policy framework and include consideration of the operational impacts of the site, traffic management concerns, visual impact and the effect on nearby heritage features, among many other factors. If we were to move to a system whereby proposals for non-hydraulic fracturing shale exploration developments were decided under permitted development rights, that would no longer be the case.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I declare myself as a fracking sceptic, if not an opponent. Does he agree that trying to change the planning regime now, with the heritage that we already have on this issue, does not in my book pass what I would describe as “the sniff test”? It does not quite have legitimacy. It seems a sleight of hand and should be resisted.

[Mark Menzies]

I could not improve on what my hon. Friend has just said.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for his support for the measures in this Bill. I also pay tribute to his local authority for the sterling work it has clearly done, as have so many others across the country, in tackling this blight of empty homes. I am particularly grateful to him, because I know he has another housing-related debate coming up in short order and so I am privileged that he has made time to speak in support of this measure. I wish him well in his further debate later this afternoon.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is promoting a very welcome measure. Is he able to give the House any indication of the quantum of properties that lie vacant for more than two years and would therefore accrue this additional council tax? Will he add some indication of the potential uplift in revenue to our local authorities, which certainly need it?

[Rishi Sunak]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will be grateful for that little bit of patience and I will go over all the facts and figures of the current policy later in my speech. I hope he will find what he is looking for in that section. If he wants to come back to me for more detail at that point, I would very much welcome a further intervention.

[Simon Hoare]

I am not known for my patience.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You also should not test ours. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). I draw the House’s attention to my interest, which I think is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The hon. Gentleman and I served—I will not say with distinction, but we certainly served—on the Local Government Association resources panel for some years.

All Members will recognise that, as a result of our perfectly properly facing up to trying to repair the disastrous legacy that the Government inherited in 2010, the local government family has certainly faced a disproportionately heavy share of the burden. As we know, that has had an impact on our communities up and down the country. In my judgment, local authorities have acted perfectly properly. I served for 12 years as a district councillor, for seven of which I was running resources and the budget, and my then finance director, Frank Wilson, and I were always at great pains to find any way whatsoever to bring in extra money. We went down the back of every sofa, armchair and chaise longue to find coinage wherever it could possibly be hiding. When the Government presented us with an opportunity to raise perhaps a couple of extra quid, we grasped it like drowning men in a turbulent ocean.

I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about flexibility, which is of absolute importance. My understanding of both the Bill and indeed the Lords amendment is that this should not be viewed not as a revenue raiser for local authorities, but rather a spur to maximise housing stock accessibility. There cannot be a colleague in the House who does not meet people—at their advice surgeries or at other constituency engagements—raising the problems of accessibility to housing, the inability to get on to the housing ladder and the length of and delays in the planning process, all of which make a contribution to the difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder itself. Anything that can be done to increase access to existing housing stock has, in my judgment, to be welcomed very warmly.

If I may, I want to probe what the Minister said and to read into the record his very important comments about flexibility. Proposed new subsection (1A) in Lords amendment 1 reads:

“In subsection (1)(b)”—

if anybody wants to buy shares in the man who makes the keys for the bracket signs, I suggest they do so now, because there are an awful lot of brackets in this measure—

“(maximum percentage by which council tax may be increased)”.

The key word there is the conditional “may”. It does not have to be increased, and local authorities should view this as not merely a cash cow but, as I say, as a spur to increase accessibility. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider providing very clear guidance to local authorities—perhaps via the Local Government Association, but also directly to finance directors and leaders of councils—that they do have such flexibility.

My hon. Friend the Minister suggested one or two things. I am concerned about cases in which the clock is not reset when a property is sold. I appreciate entirely that there may be circumstances in which there is a paper transaction between brother and brother, or sister and sister, to try to dodge the additional tax, but I suggest that that is probably, given stamp duty and so on, a rather unlikely scenario.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he not accept that there are cases in which people do not have any intention of selling the property? It might be on the market at inflated price, but if not, when someone tries to buy it, every obstacle is put in their way to stop the purchase.

[Simon Hoare]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I am rather pleased that the Minister may be writing guidance and setting out examples. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct: whenever we create a system, someone somewhere will find a way of playing it. However, with the greatest respect, I do not think that that should preclude the authoring of guidance notes with examples and, indeed, the creation of those systems. However, he is right that we should always be alert to those who try to play the system.

I would like to give the House and my hon. Friend the Minister some examples to consider. If a building is in a conservation area or has listed building status, that can lead to a complicated planning process. If a house is incredibly run down and is not legally habitable, but someone buys it with a view to doing it up and putting it on the market, it would be perverse, if they were making an investment to make the house habitable but experience problems with listed planning consent and so on, for them to be double-clobbered with an expensive council tax bill.

My hon. Friend alluded to natural disasters.

[Rachel Maclean]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I give way with great pleasure to my hon. Friend, a fellow Home Office Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is making good points about flexibility and councils’ powers. The Minister referred to instances in which people were in care. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that, because that can often be a fluid and flexible situation?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting.

[Simon Hoare]

I was about to talk about flooding, Mr Deputy Speaker. Drifting and flooding may be linked.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Some might suggest a filibuster, but do carry on.

[Simon Hoare]

If anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, were to suggest a filibuster, they would be challenging your authority, because we look to you to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members remain in order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. You are drifting. Get on with it—come on.

[Simon Hoare]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are robust.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am enjoying it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

If I receive no other accolade in the House, to give enjoyment to my—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not here to discuss accolades. We are going to discuss the Bill.

[Simon Hoare]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to talk about natural disasters such as fire or flood. A house that has been significantly damaged by flood may have to be rewired and replastered, meaning that people cannot move back in.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does that not reinforce the importance of local authorities using their discretion before levying extra charges on empty properties? They need to use their judgment.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend strikes at the beating heart of my argument and the importance of that three-letter word “may”. The word is not “shall”, not “would” and not “must”, but “may”.

What is entirely proper—this was implicit in my hon. Friend’s contribution—is the discretion that local authorities, with their local knowledge, will have. It is not for the Minister and his bowler-hatted officials—I see all the bowler hats in the official Box—to be absolutely prescriptive. Local authorities will know some of the rogues and chancers in their area, and they will know if there is a difficulty in the planning process. They should—I have little or no doubt that, with the exhortation of our hon. Friend the Minister, they will—understand the vital importance of the word “may”.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. A fire in Paignton on Thursday affected a number of residential properties, and does he agree that that is why the “may” is so vital? This cannot be just about people doing what they can to get the maximum revenue. It is about doing something to get a property back into use when someone is not taking the steps to do so, but not penalising those who clearly are making best efforts to ensure they get their property back into use.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In drawing on his extensive local government experience, he hits upon the very salient phrase “best efforts”. Most people in a locality will be able to see through those who are not using their best endeavours but merely trying to play the system. He references properties damaged by fire, mentioning one in his constituency. I think that we will all have had properties in our constituencies damaged to varying degrees of intensity by fire. That can, of course, lead to incredibly delayed and complex insurance claims, with all the to-ing and fro-ing that cannot necessarily be dealt with particularly swiftly. I would hope that where there is a clear prima facie case that there were delays in the insurance process, those, too, will be taken into account.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) referred to people who are selling a house but deliberately set the bar too high so that they make it unaffordable. Of course, there are people who, because of historical claims for fire or flooding, will find it difficult to secure insurance and a mortgage so that they can buy a property. That is not a fault of the purchaser and it is certainly not a fault of the vendor. I recently saw a house for sale in my constituency on which, because of the materials with which it was built, a mortgage cannot be secured. That is not the fault of the vendor, who has been trying to sell it for a considerable period of time. It would, I suggest, be an entirely unforeseen and unjustified consequence if that person were saddled with an onerously high council tax bill at a time when they were legitimately trying to dispose of an asset, but could not do so because nobody could afford to buy because they could not arrange a mortgage for it.

I hope that local authorities will not put into the “too difficult to deal with” box the civil law matter of a family that is rowing among themselves about who actually inherits a house, who has the right to sell it and who wants to inhabit it. We all know that where there is a will there is an argument and that sometimes where there is no will there can be a real cause for concern. Those are the areas of flexibility that our local authority officers and councillors need to be alert to and flexible about. I hope that the Minister can assure me that guidance highlighting the “may” and the need for flexibility and discretion will be pointed out to our local authorities.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Draft Dorset (Structural Changes) (Modification Of The Local Government And Public Involvement In Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018 Draft Bournemouth, Dorset And Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Dorset (Structure Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am delighted to see so many hon. Members present. The statutory instruments were laid before this House on 29 March. If approved, they will provide for the abolition of the nine existing local government areas in Dorset and their councils, and similarly affect the existing boroughs of Bournemouth and Poole, the county of Dorset and the boroughs and districts in the county of Dorset. They will also allow for the establishment of two new local government areas and two new single-tier unitary councils for the area on 1 April 2019.

The Government, as made clear in our manifesto, are committed to supporting those local authorities that wish to combine to serve their communities better. We have also announced to the House that we will consider any locally led proposals for local government restructuring that are put forward by one or more of the councils concerned and that improve local government and service delivery, create structures with a credible geography and command a good deal of local support.

The Dorset councils’ proposals would establish a single tier of local government across the whole of Dorset, replacing the nine existing local government areas and their councils with two new local government areas and councils: one to cover the areas of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and a second covering the rest of Dorset.

Dorset estimates that that has the potential to generate savings of at least £108 million over the first six years. The full transformation programme, which unitarisation makes possible, offers the potential to save more than £170 million over that period. In bringing forward their proposal, the nine Dorset councils undertook extensive engagement and open consultation. That included a formal consultation from August to October 2016, comprising the following elements: an open consultation; a representative household survey; a survey of all parish and town councils; 15 lengthy deliberative workshops; nine in-depth telephone interviews with representatives of some of Dorset’s largest companies; and finally, the opportunity to submit written submissions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Could my hon. Friend amplify two points? First, the proposal is to create two new councils, not to merge existing local authorities; secondly, the most germane point is that this has been a grassroots-up proposal, not a top-down diktat.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for both his points, which he made well and with which I am delighted to agree. This locally led and locally driven proposal came from the bottom up for Government to consider.

The consultation programme achieved well over 70,000 responses. There was clear support for moving to two unitary councils. In the representative household survey, 73% of residents were supportive. In general, across all the areas of Dorset, there was an emphatic preference for the proposed option, with 65% of residents in the representative household survey supporting it.

The then Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), told Parliament in February last year what criteria Government would use for assessing locally led proposals for local government restructuring, namely that the proposal is likely to improve local government in the area concerned; that it has a credible geography; and that it commands a good deal of local support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I am happy to discuss the issue now, except I fear that he may want to return it in reference to the exchanges on the passing of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 and the assurances he believes he was given. He has corresponded at length with the Department on that point. Suffice to say, I think there was a misunderstanding on his part about what was said. It was clearly set out by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), that the Government would not impose a top-down solution on local government but would respond to locally led and locally driven proposals. That was further clarified in the other place by Baroness Williams of Trafford, who made it explicitly clear that no one council should have a veto on restructuring proposals.

[Simon Hoare]

It is not only the noble baroness who has confirmed that point. In early December, during the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), confirmed in response to an intervention by me that unanimity was not required.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton told the House that the Government’s intention was for those criteria to be assessed in the round and across the whole area subject to a reorganisation, and not to be considered individually by each existing council area.

Following on from that, on 7 November 2017 the then Secretary of State told the House in a written statement that he was “minded to” implement the proposal made by the Dorset councils. A period of representation followed, until 8 January this year, during which we received 210 representations. On the basis of the proposal, the representations and all other relevant information available, the Government are satisfied that all the criteria are met. On 26 February 2018 the Secretary of State announced his decision to implement the proposal, subject to parliamentary approval, and on 29 March laid the draft statutory instruments.

We believe that the proposed governance changes for which we are seeking parliamentary approval will benefit people across the whole of Dorset, in every district and borough. Our aim as a Government is to enable the people of Dorset to have as good a deal as possible on their local services. That is not the view of the Government alone; it is shared by 79% of all councillors across the whole of Dorset, and by other public service providers and businesses, including in particular those responsible for the provision of healthcare, and the police, fire and rescue, and rail services across Christchurch and the wider Dorset area.

As has been mentioned, on 29 November a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends with constituencies in the area wrote to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), urging him to support the proposal submitted by the Dorset councils as the option that commanded strong local support and that will do the job that needs to be done. They stated that

“the further savings required to be made, if our councils are to continue delivering quality public services, can only be done through a reorganisation of their structures”.

The representative household survey, commissioned by the nine Dorset councils, estimates that 65% of residents across the whole of Dorset support the proposal. Of the nine Dorset councils, eight support the proposed change and have formally consented to the necessary secondary legislation.

Regarding the one Dorset council that does not support the proposal—Christchurch Borough Council—a third of its elected councillors do support the proposal. Those councillors wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, stating:

“We are acutely aware of the constraints on local government funding and the financial pressure that upper tier services are facing. We therefore consider it our duty to respond to these challenges by supporting the restructuring of local government in Dorset.”

Finally, it might be helpful to say something about the statutory framework.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think the poll he refers to was an open-ended one run by the borough of Christchurch, which accounts for only 6% of the population of the Dorset area. Secondly, it is not only Christchurch Borough Council that is responsible for the services provided to the residents of Christchurch. The county council provides about 80% of those services. Across the piece, in the representative household survey, which was designed to be statistically representative, there is strong support among more than 60% of Christchurch residents for this particular proposal.

[Simon Hoare]

I have searched, as I am sure the Minister has, all the regulations and guidance for the status of a referendum in this process, but it cannot be found. To call it a referendum is incorrect. It was a parish poll, which is not binding on the commissioning body—that is, the borough council—and it is certainly not binding on Her Majesty’s Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to do that. The Department has received what is called a pre-action protocol letter from Christchurch Borough Council, informing of its consideration of a judicial review. It is important to note that that is not the start of a formal legal proceeding. It is an exploratory letter, to which the Government have responded extremely robustly. We have set out in no uncertain terms why we believe—

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call Simon Hoare again.

[Simon Hoare]

I note the use of the word “again”, Sir Henry. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in two conferences with leading counsel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has referred to and one of which he attended, leading counsel advised Christchurch Borough Council that there were no grounds for a judicial review?

[Rishi Sunak]

That is a very interesting intervention from my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. We find ourselves in the middle of what seems to be a rift in the Conservative party. Luckily, we have been gently eased into that sort of thing during Brexit negotiations, so we are very much used to it.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Jim McMahon]

I might start before I give way, if that is okay. The principle for any merger or reorganisation ought to be that it has the consent of local people, is in the spirit of democracy and will lead to good governance and good public services being delivered. As an observation, we know that a number of members of the Committee who have voting rights support the regulations; it does not sit well that the single Member from the area who does not support the plan is not allowed to sit on the Committee with voting rights. I understand that that is about managing the process and not wanting to create division on the Government Benches, but it is not quite in the spirit of having robust debate where there is clearly a difference of opinion.

[Simon Hoare]

This is an enormously important point. There are eight Members of Parliament—they happen to be Conservative Members—representing the county of Dorset, and none of us is a voting Member on this piece of legislation. We happen to be exercising our right, as any Member can, to turn up to a Delegated Legislation Committee and speak. However, when Sir Henry calls for votes, no Dorset hands will be able to go up or stay down.

[Jim McMahon]

I am grateful for that clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. I echo many of the comments made about the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, who leads for the Opposition on these matters, and the very careful way he has dealt with the issue. He and I served for some little time on the Local Government Association resources panel when we were both councillors. He was the very respected leader of Oldham Council, and it is nice to see him in his place today.

These debates could be characterised as or could come under the heading of 101 things that you wanted to know about Dorset local government but were too afraid to ask. I notice that the Labour Whips, on their Twitter feed, have promoted this afternoon’s joust:

“If anyone wants to watch the Tories having a fight about local government—there’s live entertainment going on in Committee room 9 now.”

It must be a salutary lesson for colleagues on both sides of the House when the Whips come and tap them on the shoulder and say, “Would you mind serving for a few minutes on a Delegated Legislation Committee? It won’t take that long,” and in fact they have to rearrange their diaries. But anyone who now wants to enter the pub quizzes in their constituency with all sorts of questions about Dorset will come top of the class.

Let us remind ourselves of why we have got to this point. The Minister has been absolutely right, as have other colleagues, in saying that this has been a grassroots movement from the bottom up. This is not an impost, a diktat or some Act of Parliament forcing us to do it from central Government, but council officers, councillors, statutory consultees, the public and other groups coming together to say, “What have we done? What are the issues? And where can we go?” It is not as if we are starting from a position whereby nine councils in the county and unitary areas of Bournemouth and Poole have been working in splendid isolation. They have frankly screwed the maximum amount of savings and efficiencies from collaborative working, be that in Christchurch and East Dorset, North Dorset, West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland, or be it in Bournemouth and Poole.

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend mentions south Dorset and Weymouth, so may I pay tribute to our chief executive, Matt Prosser, who is the leader of our tri-councillors and a superb chief executive? As I think colleagues have mentioned, this move will see a lot of people lose their jobs.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right, and I too pay tribute to Matt Prosser, and to the leaders of councils that cover my constituency—Councillor Graham Carr-Jones is the leader of North Dorset District Council, and Councillor Spencer Flower leads East Dorset District Council. Councillor Rebecca Knox is leader of the county council. They came together—this has been a salutary lesson for us all, and I firmly believe that that was one of the lead motivators for seven of the eight Members of Parliament representing constituencies in the county to support them. They have tried all those efficiency savings and had some signal success.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is right. I have been in post for just three years, but in that time I have noticed—as has my caseworker, Diana Mogg, who served my predecessor for 18 years—an absolute peak in people contacting us, and coming to advice surgeries with questions about children’s services, special educational needs and statementing, rural transport, and the provision of adult services. There has been a spike, and the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton was right to point out the indisputable fact that local government has shouldered a heavy burden as we try to get the national finances back to some semblance of normality. Colleagues, irrespective of where we stand on these proposals, have argued with previous Secretaries of State and with the Treasury to get a better funding settlement for our county.

[Jim McMahon]

Although austerity has bitten and every Department was expected to take some responsibility, the burden has fallen disproportionately on local government. As it stands, the local government workforce is at its lowest since comparable records began, and the central Government workforce is at its highest.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and in the seven years that I was cabinet member for resources on West Oxfordshire District Council, we faced such issues, just as he will have done as a former leader of Oldham Council. He is right to point out that the local government family has shouldered the largest burden.

It cannot be a coincidence that the proposals submitted to the Government command such comprehensive support. Colleagues speaking in support of the proposal have listed some of that support, and my checklist includes the local enterprise partnership, our town and parish council association, the clinical commissioning group, Dorset chamber of commerce, the Port of Poole, the two universities, the police, seven of the eight Members of Parliament, and eight of the nine councils.

Let me pause for a moment, because it is important to put on the record that until some months ago, six councils in Dorset supported the reorganisation and three did not—Purbeck and East Dorset District Councils have been on a journey. They have forensically examined the proposals, and after a period of time and reflection, they came to the clear perception that this is really the only song on the hymn sheet that will do the job that is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that the proposal could mean “doomsday for a lot of Conservatives in Dorset.” He might be right—I believe that he will be wrong—but, in a way, it does not actually matter. It ill behoves us to suggest that the motivation of public service rests entirely on being tested against the balance of party political advantage. Public service should trump everything. As a number of colleagues have pointed out, it is not that we Members of Parliament are turkeys voting for Christmas; but that our councillors, having exhaustively explored and delivered savings over three, four or five years now, realise that this is the next inexorable step that has to be taken.

I say with as much respect as I can muster that although those of us supporting the proposals in the political arena were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch as ignorant and predators on these matters—allegations to which I take exception and that I would certainly refute; although perhaps we could be called those things, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset could never be referred to as ignorant—we have come to the judgment that this is right for public service.

When we ask our constituents—often the most vulnerable in the county who are reliant on the locally provided public services—whether they think that it is right to reduce the number of councils and councillors and, in so doing, continue to provide quality public services, or simply to manage provision that is declining quantitatively and qualitatively while saying, “By golly, do not worry, we have preserved x officers, x buildings and x councillors”, I would say from my experience of 12 years as a district councillor, three years as a county councillor and two years as a parish councillor that most of our constituents are pretty normal people and they could not really give a toss, Sir Henry—

[The Chair]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that last remark?

[Simon Hoare]

My apologies, Sir Henry. If it is unparliamentary, I will. I did not intend that. They really could not give a—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

A fig!

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend, as always, has the pithy word that I sought in vain.

Our constituents really could not give a fig how the product is arrived at as long as there is a product for them to access and a service for them to use.

[Jim McMahon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will.

[Jim McMahon]

Perhaps this will help the hon. Gentleman to regain his composure. Does he accept that although the public absolutely want to see more efficient public service, local identity is really important? No reorganisation should try to redesign local identity that people feel strongly about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In my part of the county, we are incredibly well served by hands-on, proactive and locally engaged town and parish councils. Just last Friday, I met the clerk and senior leadership of Blandford Forum Town Council, who are 100% behind the proposals and are egging them on, because they see an enormous opportunity in a slimmed down and more efficient local government geography within the county to make even closer ties with the communities they serve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West alluded to the fact—I must confess that I am not a geographer in these matters—that one can start from the boundary of Poole, Christchurch or Bournemouth and drive, walk or cycle through all three, and apart from some rather nicely designed signs saying welcome to one or thank you for visiting the other, one frankly does not know where one is.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Of course I will give way to the sage of Dorset, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful. My hon. Friend was giving us his definition of public service, and I just wondered whether he would include a Member of Parliament who speaks up for what 84% of local residents vote for in a poll. Would he call that public service, too?

[Simon Hoare]

Rather like red wine—and even claret, Sir Henry—there is good ordinary and premier cru. I will leave it to the Committee to work out which I think might be which.

My hon. Friend invites me to comment on the public support for this proposal, and it has been there. The councils were at great pains to ensure that the company that they commissioned had a proven track record, to set beyond peradventure the results that it derived. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my hon. Friend the Minister suggested, that provided a level of support for option 2b, which is what we have been discussing this afternoon, across all geographies in the county, including within Christchurch—scientifically based and properly analysed.

In echoing the thanks that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West gave to the officials at the then DCLG, which is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I also pay tribute to the huge professionalism of Paul Rowsell—who, I believe I am right in saying, is a resident of Christchurch and steward of the priory and who has a huge knowledge of the county—and the clear and sensible way that he has dealt with these matters.

[Conor Burns]

We know the poll result in Christchurch and we understand the divisions within the council and the population of Christchurch, so does my hon. Friend agree that if the new local authority is forged, there will be a special responsibility on all of us in the rest of the conurbation to work incredibly hard to allay the fears that have been built up in getting to this point?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. “Magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat”, I think is the old phrase—I forget the order; it may be the other way around. That is the test. We have been convinced of the merits. Rather like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, I am not known for my radical tendencies. I am not a great thrower-up of all the balls into the air to see how they will come down.

This has been a forensic exercise and the case has been made to the vast majority of us who have the great privilege of representing communities in Dorset. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is absolutely right that local identity matters, so whether it is a mace or gown, a tricorn or bicorn hat, or a town’s ancient ritual—I see the mace bearer in Blandford and the clerk, who wears her black gown and her legal wig, on civic occasions—these are important things for communities. They are what defines us as English—I think I can just about say that, as a Welshman—and British.

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech, as have other colleagues. To pick up on an earlier point, I entirely concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said: I have the highest respect for our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and yes, he has stood up for his constituents. He has done all he possibly could, and any other MP in that seat would have done the same. I pay tribute to him; we all do. But when we have all voted, when this has been forensically looked at and when the evidence is there, bearing in mind all the facts that we have to take into account, surely there comes a point when a decision has to be made for the benefit of us all, and at that point I think an MP has to stand down.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend—who is, dare I say it, the epitome of Englishness—is absolutely right. We need to convince our friends and colleagues who reside in the Christchurch constituency or within the boundaries of the Christchurch borough that this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for public service, the right thing for good, sensible, conservative, prudent financial management and the right thing to guarantee the future of local government in our county.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Of course, although I am tempted to say that, with the exception of the Minister, my hon. Friend is the first member of the Committee to intervene.

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend. On that note, does he think it would be wise to look to the neighbouring authority of Wiltshire, where we have not lost our identity by amalgamating, but have gained economies of scale? Our unitary council has not closed one library.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend strikes to the heart of the matter. It is not about constructs: it is about delivery of service. It is not as if Dorset is treading a virgin path. Bedfordshire, Shropshire and Cornwall have done the same thing, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, Wiltshire has done it too.

I should be prepared to wager a small amount of money with my hon. Friend or any member of the Committee that if we were to knock on a door in Wiltshire today and ask the person who answered whether they would have preferred the library to remain open, or to have 300 councillors all drawing their stipend, most—unless, possibly, they were one of the councillors—would say they preferred the library. Why? Because the library is a good thing. It is a community asset. It encourages children to read. It is a social and community hub. That is why the protection of those things is important.

Certainly, Baroness Scott, the leader of Wiltshire Council, has been a trailblazer in ensuring—particularly in a rural area—that such issues are taken into account to preserve, conserve and promote local identity. I am perfectly prepared to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch if I have got my local government history wrong, but I think Christchurch became a borough council only in 1974. Prior to that, it was a town council in Hampshire. I shall work on the assumption that that might be correct.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, it is incorrect. Christchurch has been an independent borough since 1215.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but let us look at the word “independent”, because he has used it on a number of occasions in the House. I think, actually, he has deployed the phrase “sovereign and independent”, which suggests something like the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, or Liechtenstein. He was, of course, a councillor in Wandsworth—effectively a unitary, but Members present who have had experience in a two-tier council will know that the room for manoeuvre, whether in a borough or a district council, is tiny.

Housing numbers are effectively shaped and dictated by central Government, and freedom to raise council tax is curtailed by a capping regime. According to the estimates I have heard about services delivered in a two-tier authority, between 80% and 90% of the services delivered to Christchurch, Stourbridge, Sturminster Newton, Sturminster Marshall, Blandford Forum, Gillingham and Shaftesbury, which is in my constituency, would be provided by Dorset County Council. By definition, the larger voting number would not come from one specific geography, so I perceive real opportunities from the new council.

That is an important point. The change is not a merger—hostile or friendly—and it is not a takeover; it is the creation of two new councils. Certainly in Dorset rural—the existing county minus the borough of Christchurch—we are reviewing our boundaries. We are not calling them divisions; we are going to call them wards, because it feels more granular. If you talk to most people, they refer to their ward councillor, not their divisional member. That boundary review will allow new wards to be created straddling existing north-west or south and mid-Dorset boundaries.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend is talking about lines on maps. We are talking in Christchurch about a community with a long history and a great, strong local identity. Although he was not in the Christchurch constituency, he intervened in the Christchurch referendum to try to persuade people to vote in favour of Christchurch restructuring. Can he explain why he thinks he so manifestly failed to persuade the people of Christchurch that he was right and I was wrong?

[Simon Hoare]

I am not entirely sure that four tweets from a Back-Bench Conservative Member of Parliament could be described as an intervention. This is hardly a Russian-sponsored cyber-attack of some form. I do not have that many followers. My hon. Friend gilds me with powers that I would not even presume to aggrandise with myself.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that 17,000 people took part in the parish poll. It was a postal poll, so people did not actually have to turn up to polling stations. I think people could bring in their form to the borough council headquarters if they wished. As a percentage of those who are eligible to vote within the parliamentary constituency, 17,000 is a number, but it is no more than that. That point strikes at the heart of this argument. Nobody can doubt the passion that has been deployed on either side. The split between Dorchester and Sherborne—that historical divide of the civil war—is a vicar’s tea party in comparison with some of the blood pressure increases that we have seen as the process has gone forward.

I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West made. Irrespective of where the public were on this issue two years ago or a year ago, or even where they are now, they should have no doubt—I would hope that they had some considerable pride—that we have all engaged passionately in this debate not out of narrow party interest or narrow self-interest, but because of what we believe, in our hearts and our souls, to be good for those who send us here.

The key point is that unanimity is not required in the legislation, because it would make a nonsense of the law, but it is desirable. Let us be frank: if not, we would not have taken up so much of your time, Sir Henry, or that of those colleagues who have had the enormous good fortune to be drawn in the Whips’ Office raffle to sit on this Delegated Legislation Committee.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend mentions that unanimity is not required. He is absolutely right. Can he think of any other examples? I can think of Cornwall, where there was not unanimity, and yet it was still reorganised.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that unanimity would be deeply worrying. It would almost suggest a “couldn’t care less” attitude, where something is done down the line of least resistance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham knows, not all constituent parts of Wiltshire wanted the change to happen. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole inexorably provides me with the key test. The logical step is to go and ask anyone, “Would you want to go back to having two-tier local government in Wiltshire? Would you want to go back to having two-tier local government in Shropshire? Would you want to go back to having two-tier local government in Cornwall?” I think the answer uniformly, and probably definitely, would be no.

The direction of travel is clear. What we are trying to do in Dorset is not eccentric or perverse; it is not in any way weird. It is a democratic response, underpinned by intellectual and academic argument to deliver on that principal propulsion of public service. That is what this is about. We can see the situation evolving in Northamptonshire, in Oxfordshire—[Interruption.] Look—people are fighting to come in. The bouncers are asking for ID. People are being asked to turn up with their grandparents and sometimes great-grandparents in order to get a seat in this marvellous Delegated Legislation Committee. As I was saying, it is happening in Northamptonshire. I understand that neighbours in Somerset are looking at it, and that Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire have proposals that are either with the Secretary of State or shortly to come before him.

Two-tier local government will be a bizarre construct to the Opposition spokesman, having come from the metropolitan borough of Oldham, but he will know of the speedy and more efficient decisions that can be taken by single-tier government.

[Jim McMahon]

It is important to say that a lot of government is in constant evolution and change. Although local government appears to be a single unit, we have parish councils in some areas, town councils in others, and the emergence and growth of the combined authority.

[Simon Hoare]

That just goes to show how right it is that the proposal has not been in response to an impost, a diktat, or a Secretary of State’s fiat: “This is what is going to happen.” One size does not fit all. [Interruption.] Well done, sir—you have been able to get a ticket to come into this great event. You might have fought to come in, but you will be fighting to get out in a moment.

I have always thought that we in Dorset have been phenomenally lucky that we have been so readily and easily cleaved into two parts. I have always used the titles—working titles, I admit—“Dorset rural” and “Dorset urban” for new councils, able to respond to new initiatives, new endeavours and new demands reflecting specific local concerns and requirements. That is why, unlike some of my colleagues, I was never persuaded of the merits of having one unitary council covering the whole of the county of Dorset. My anxiety, as a rural Member, was that rural concerns and imperatives—the need to scope, sculpt and deliver services in a bespoke way in a rural community—may well have been trumped by the louder siren voices of Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole.

[Conor Burns]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Simon Hoare]

The siren voice of Bournemouth rises.

[Conor Burns]

I am delighted to intervene on my hon. Friend with my not-too siren voice. Does he understand that exactly the opposite fears were felt at the urban end of the county—that our service sector and tech economy would not be understood by a rurally led county council covering the whole county from Dorchester?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. It depends from which end of the telescope one looks at this, which just goes to show the compelling validity and veracity of the proposal that colleagues in local government across the county submitted for ministerial decision. They looked at a number of options with officials in London, officers in their relevant jurisdictions, and their councillors. Clearly, the proposal addresses the conundrum that I posed from the rural end of the telescope, and which my hon. Friend has posed from the urban end. One could describe it as a win-win situation.

If hon. Members will allow me to purloin a phrase, it will allow councillors within the conurbation, and councillors in the rural area, to take back control. [Interruption.] The Labour Whip very kindly chortles at my observation—chortles, perhaps, to the point of expiration. This is an important point, because it will allow people with the most granular knowledge of their geographies to deliver in a way that their constituents and voters want. After the savings have been made, the money will allow them to provide the services that our local residents most need.

As public servants, we often talk about hard-to-reach communities. Very often, the people who are the most dependent upon our public sector services are the least likely to engage in this progress. Why? Because, frankly, they are just too damn busy getting on with the daily grind of life and trying to make ends meet, trying to keep a roof over their head or trying to get the council to sort something out—the free school meals, the bus pass, the school place, whatever it happens to be. That is a really important point. In this process, we will ensure that rural services are delivered in rural areas, and conurbation services are delivered in conurbations.

[Richard Drax]

While I have the Minister’s attention, I want to say that we hope the rural unitary will be as important as the urban unitary and will receive equal investment.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend strikes a very telling point, which he, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset have made to organisations such as the Dorset Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Dorset local enterprise partnership. Dorset’s economy does not end halfway up Wimborne high street. It is in our former milking parlours, our little industrial units, our small starter units in Sturminster Newton or Blandford Forum, in our hubs and hives of enterprise, job creation and innovation, wherever they happen to be.

Just last Friday, I visited a business in Blandford that operates over a two-storey floor space that I would suggest is no larger than this room, but has just signed a £10.5 million export deal with Nigeria to provide LED lighting. That strong contract was cited by the Minister for Trade Policy in departmental press releases during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Little Blandford Forum—such a hub of innovation!

The complexity—the confusing mosaic; the fit-inducing kaleidoscope—of the geography of local government that we have at the moment has allowed larger bodies to concentrate their attention unduly on the conurbation, almost allowing one side to be played off against the other. In this new regime, that cannot be the case. In my assessment, the economies of the whole of the county will benefit.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Will he please comment on my brief intervention, in which I mentioned our joint campaign on infrastructure on north-south routes? Does he believe that this order will help bids to be put in to secure more infrastructure investment in Dorset?

[Simon Hoare]

Without a shadow of a doubt, my hon. Friend is right. He and I have sat with the former Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, our hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and of course we will be sitting down and discussing these issues with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is absolutely right that a unified voice from one local authority will be able to make a case for that strategic investment. We have seen it happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham is more than welcome to chip in—if you will forgive the pun, Sir Henry—at this point. Certainly, there has been a far greater level of investment in the A350 corridor since Wiltshire became unitary than when there was a county council and districts. The proof of the pudding is very often in the eating, and that trail of investment—that opportunity to make a cohesive and cogent submission to Whitehall—is far more likely to be efficacious under a unitary approach than in the “let’s play one off against the other” two-tier system.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole would concur with this statement: that when the proposition—the tantalising prize—of reorganisation within the county has been put before other decision makers, interest that has existed has become more alert and acute when they have realised that there is likely to be a slimming-down in the relationship of dialogue that is needed to take decisions.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps my hon. Friend could throw one last thing into this matrix as well. When Members of Parliament across the country also speak with one voice—as he and I do on this project, as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Poole; the A350 starts near the port of Poole—that also lends greater weight.

[Simon Hoare]

Absolutely right, and the work that our hon. Friend the Member for Poole does on behalf of his constituents should not be neglected in these matters.

I will go back briefly to one issue, because I am conscious that I did not deal with it with the weight and attention that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West as an individual both requires and deserves. The local identity is hugely important. No Conservative likes the big and the monolithic. We quite like the quirky, the different and the local—it is what makes up, I think, part of our Conservative DNA. I have always gone into this process with the firm and clear caveat that local Mayors—whether it is the Mayor of Shaftesbury, the Mayor of Blandford Forum or the Mayor of Verwood Town Council—can continue in office and have a role. I actually think that role would be augmented and enhanced when they are no longer the junior tier of local government, with the district or the borough sandwiched somewhere in between, but instead have a more direct link up to the unitary council and down.

There is also Weymouth to consider. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset shares my view and I am sure that he, like I, welcomed this change; it falls within his bailiwick. My support for it, and indeed anything else, is absolutely ancillary to the case that Weymouth makes, but what a marvellous initiative of Weymouth to work towards the creation of a town council, because that will ensure that granular, democratic accountability.

I take entirely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made, because—frankly—anybody who has listened to him for more than two minutes could not fail to have noticed the most enormous pride that residents and public servants of Christchurch have—rightly—in the history of their part of the county, which was once in Hampshire and is now in Dorset. But that is the point, I say to the Minister: it makes no difference where they are; it is what they are that is important. It is how they feel that motivates them and makes them tick.

Blandford Forum would be Blandford Forum if it were in North or West Yorkshire, or in Wiltshire, because it would still be Blandford Forum. And Christchurch has been Christchurch whether it has resided within the county boundary of Hampshire or the county boundary of Dorset. Why? Because it is Christchurch. And should the good burghers of that borough seek the creation of a town council, I think it would be the most phenomenal success.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend talks about Christchurch, but before he did so he mentioned Weymouth and its town council. Perhaps he could say something more about the opportunities for town and parish councils to have a beefed-up role if this particular order is passed, and about where he sees the opportunities for our parish and town councils as well.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right to point to that opportunity.

I pay tribute at this point to Councillor Simon Tong, a former headteacher who will certainly be known to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. At the first opportunity that Councillor Tong had to vote on this proposal as a member of East Dorset District Council, he voted against it. One of his reasons—in fact, his principal reason—for voting against it was the very germane and specific concern that my hon. Friend raised: the potential for a disconnect and for a subversion of town and parish councils.

It was one of those odd situations where one would be damned if one did and damned if one did not. If one had gone into all the minutiae of precisely who would be procuring the pencils, the highlighters, the ring binders, the desks, the table lamps or any other office stationery, or who was going to commission the painter of the livery on the side of the van, one might quite legitimately have been said to be putting the cart before the horse. However, it was then realised pretty quickly—I believe this was one of the concerns expressed by Purbeck and by Weymouth and Portland—that there was a question about the role, scope and vision for town and parish councils. I think that is now starting to emerge. This cannot be done top-down; it has to be done in collaboration.

[Richard Drax]

I agree entirely that there is going to be greater scope for town councils. When the Minister sums up, he might just allude to that and reassure us that town and parish councils will indeed have a role in the future.

[Simon Hoare]

I concur with my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot do that, I will be performing the greatest volte-face in Dorset’s political history and joining my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Thank goodness you don’t have a vote.

[Simon Hoare]

So says my hon. Friend. If I may pinch a phrase from more auspicious colleagues, one of my red lines has been the role of the town and parish councils—making sure that there are local voices and that that relationship is forged with ward members. Gillingham will end up with three councillors, and Blandford will end up with two; part of the skill set that we will be looking for, certainly in our candidate, is a very firm commitment to close liaison with those town and parish councils.

[Michelle Donelan]

In Wiltshire, the town councils are extremely important, and we have a process of devolution—devolving powers down to those town councils. However, it is important to remember that this is not something that is going to be forced on people; it is the unitary councils’ responsibility to shape this with the will of local people. It is a process that is happening bottom up.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. I suggest—this may put the fear of God into her—that we may be beating a path to her door and to that of her senior council leadership, because we do not want to reinvent the wheel. We want to find out where some of the pitfalls have been and what the success stories have been. We want to emulate and gild the success and not to repeat any errors that Wiltshire, Cornwall, Shropshire and so on have made. That is the clear path to making this a success.

Likewise—my hon. Friend alluded to this incredibly important point in her intervention—it will be crucial for our two new councils to be member-led. When we have member-led authorities that are responsive to and reflective of the concerns, fears and aspirations of the electorate, as expressed on the doorstep, at surgeries and through the ballot box, we are more likely to have a specific, bespoke level of services authored from the membership up.

This is going to require strong political elbows in a joint endeavour. I draw huge comfort from the fact that, in terms of the main parties of the county—when I say the main parties, I mean the Labour party and the Conservative party, because they are the two main parties as far as the last general election is concerned—we have the support of the Dorset Labour party in this initiative, because it, too, is committed to this level of public service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I am sure it would be very useful for us to hear again from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about how he envisages playing a part in moving Christchurch on if, as seems to be the will of the Committee, the motion is passed.

[Simon Hoare]

That was a typically elegant invitation from my hon. Friend, urging me, in his polite and dulcet tones, to draw what I would have characterised as my opening remarks to a peroration.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Shut up and sit down!

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, in some uncharacteristically cheap sedentary chunter, says, “Shut up and sit down!” I note the ironic “Hear, hears!” from members of the Committee. I view that as an invitation to move on to volume 3, but I shall not. Let me draw my remarks to a close—

[Chris Elmore]

Shame!

[Simon Hoare]

Tantalising though the hon. Gentleman’s invitation is, I hope he will not hold it against me if I do not avail myself of his invitation at the current time, but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage.

Let me close as I opened. I want—and I hope that all of us, as practitioners of party politics, will want—all our constituents, whether they voted for us or not, whether they think we are the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since the bubonic plague, to have confidence in this one unassailable truth: that we have locked horns and engaged in strong, heartfelt, passionate debate. That debate is now drawing to a close. Something tells me that there is very little this afternoon that will reconcile the viewpoint of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West and myself on this issue.

The one thing that will ally us all is a strong affection and admiration for our former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. We all remember that scene—often now parodied as a pastiche, but heartfelt at the time—when the new Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street prayed in aid the words of St Francis of Assisi. It was a very heartfelt, moving, spiritual prayer. Let me close with the words of St Paul: we have fought the fight to the finish; we have the run the race to the end. We have now got to the end. Let us now roll up our sleeves and make this damn thing work.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

We have now heard from three Government Members. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is another Scottish Member to add to the growing list of people who are now prepared to participate in the English Parliament. I have a question for the hon. Gentleman, and I will give him an opportunity to think about it. We think that English votes for English laws is the most appalling measure, which makes second-class Members of Parliament out of him and out of us. It divides the House on geography and nationality, and is one of the most invidious measures that has been passed in this place. I am not prepared to accept this on behalf of my constituents. I wonder whether he is. That is the big question today.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the measure divides the House on geography, but he is not right to say that it divides the House on nationality, because Members representing English constituencies who may not be English—I happen to be a Welshman—can take part in these debates and vote. The hon. Gentleman is right about geography, but wrong about nationality.

[Pete Wishart]

What we have, therefore, is a House that is divided upon nation. The last time I had a look, this was English votes for English laws. No other Parliament in the world divides its membership based on that type of geography. We are exclusively alone when it comes to conducting our business on such a basis. Lest the hon. Gentleman forgets, this is the united Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To pursue a measure that divides us, based on constituency geography, is not only totally and utterly invidious, but ludicrous and unworkable.

So we have this wonderful Parliament, but England said, “No. Never again. We will make this Parliament ours. We shall banish these Scots.” And it did. England created this fine institution—this Legislative Grand Committee, the voice of England. And what a transformation.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Mr Broza’s view is that he might have to close his business as a direct result of this completely unreasonable demand and, as I have said, his is one of 30,000 businesses in that position.

Obviously, the various different charges levied on Mr Broza covered a number of years going back to 2015-16 and 2016-17. The 2017-18 rates bill was even more aggressive, because it took account of an increase in rateable value and the loss of transitional relief and business rates relief. He was placed in a position in which he was suddenly presented with a bill for £8,344.59 in one go, to be paid within the year, when he had previously been paying the princely rates of about £370 a month on one property and only £50 a month on the other. He was clearly encountering a draconian position.

When Mr Broza came to see me, I was shocked that he was being placed in that dreadful position. Clearly, overall, the Government were going to gain from this Supreme Court decision. Whether it is local government or national Government, overall the taxpayer was going to gain some £3,040.95 in one hit that was completely unbudgeted for.

Worse still for Mr Broza, he had budgeted that his business rates bill for the 2017-18 tax year would be zero. Of course, he was then told that he would have to pay £5,365.07 within five months of receiving the bill. I took up this case with the Chancellor, and I am pleased to say that the Chancellor saw the right way to proceed: small businesses in such a situation that have acted in a perfectly reasonable and lawful way should not be penalised by suddenly being hit with a dreadful windfall tax.

However, we have a number of problems still to resolve. I welcome the Bill, under which businesses such as Wienerworld will be returned to their previous position. However, the current position is that the London Borough of Brent, and other councils across the country, are still levying these punitive tax rates and demanding payment. So businesses are having either to find money out of their revenue to pay local authorities—to keep paying the business rates as they are—or to borrow the money in the hope and expectation that it will be returned to them. Either way, this seems unsatisfactory, given that the Government have made it clear they are going to correct the position for those businesses.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that quite a lot of these things illuminate the disconnect between decision making and policy making, and an understanding of how the business world, particularly the small, local business world, works? If there was better knowledge and understanding of that, some of these cases, to which he has rightly been drawing the House’s attention, would not arise.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, Government policy should always be driven in an evidence-based way and be sympathetic, particularly to small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. However, we are dealing with a Supreme Court ruling here, as opposed to Government policy. I am pleased that the Government are trying to put it right, which is how this should work. The advice being given by officials from the Department is less than helpful in its current guise, because the correspondence we have had from the Department says that it cannot do anything until the law is corrected. That means that businesses are still being charged these business rates while the law is being changed. One thing the Government need to look at is finding a way of ensuring that people are not having to pay huge sums only for the valuations to be redone and for them to claim the money back, together with interest—there is also the bureaucracy to consider. Businesses just want to get on with their business, rather than sorting out the mess that has been created with their business rates.

The attitude of the London Borough of Brent to Wienerworld—I suspect this is shared by all local authorities across this country—is, “This is the decision. You are due to pay this money. You must pay it or else we will distrain against you to get that money off you.” That means small businesses in this country will go under as a result, and that is the concern. Obviously, the Government are moving as fast as they can to correct this position, but guidance needs to be given by the Department to local authorities on businesses that are suffering financial hardship as a direct result of a decision that was nothing to do with them, is not Government policy and needs to be corrected.

This is a problem in many parts of London, and it has been drawn to my attention that one area that will suffer heavily is Tower Hamlets, which has a number of businesses in respect of which the staircase tax is operational. This is one area where I have criticisms on this issue. Once the Bill becomes an Act and the law is corrected, the businesses will apply for revaluation. As I understand it, their revaluation will go back to 2010 if they so wish—it will probably go back at least to 2015. They will then get a revised bill, and probably a return of money and of interest, which is going to come from the local authority. I noted the Minister’s comment in reply to the Chair of the Select Committee that the position would be that local authorities have experienced a windfall. They have, but many local authorities are now going to have to repay that money once the law is changed back again and they have used that money. It is not money that they were not expecting, because they have had a judgment, and they have used this money in their budget. If the Government now say, “You’ve got to repay the money but we are not going to compensate you for that repayment”, that is a windfall to the Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising that issue. We are talking about 30,000 businesses, many of which will be concentrated in particular areas. We know that there will be a hit for some local authorities, which could be considerable. Hon. Members from across the House will not necessarily be aware of the potential hit for local authorities as a result.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend will know—if he does not, I will tell him—that I spent seven years doing the finance portfolio on a district council. When a local authority suffers from a flood, there is a Department-run fund they can make a bid to in order to cover the costs they have incurred due to those exceptional circumstances. Might that be an avenue for those local authorities? Might they be able to make such a bid in order to fill this black hole created in their local finances, which was not of their fault and which was unable to be predicted in their budgeting process?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the Government and the Department have figures they can use to evaluate which local authorities are most affected in this way. It may well be that a threshold should be imposed, whereby if only a relatively small amount of money is involved a local authority could not claim it back. However, if a substantial sum is involved, as could happen in many of these cases, we should get to a position where the local authority is returned to where it should have been in terms of the expectation in its budget. My hon. Friend may know that I was in charge of the London Borough of Brent’s finances for many years, so I know the way the finances of that local authority work extremely well. The reality is that this will create a hole in Brent council’s budget, and I do not see why Brent should suffer as a result.

Let me turn to the empty homes premium. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) asked in an intervention how we can ensure that local authorities can encourage empty homes to come back into operation, but without unfairly penalising those homeowners who are refurbishing their homes or converting them for other purposes, thereby making them temporarily empty for an extended period. We do not want those people to suffer any damage or be charged any financial premiums, but at the same time we do not want unscrupulous homeowners or landlords to keep a property empty, only to do some work when the local authority investigates, just to demonstrate that they are doing something, but still keeping the property empty for longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am sure that colleagues across the House could come up with example after example of empty homes that could have been brought back into use many years ago. Some should possibly have been demolished and replaced—I have those in my constituency —but the sad reality is that we still have far too many empty homes that should be brought back into use. Those that are derelict and have not been used for literally decades are the first that we should penalise and look to bring back into operation.

Let me end by asking Ministers to look sympathetically at how we can compensate local authorities for the loss of revenue—we have suggested a means by which that could be done—how we can get guidance to local authorities so that they do not penalise small businesses because we are correcting the law in the interim, and how we can get to a position whereby some sensible decisions can be taken as quickly as possible and small businesses that face difficulties meeting their finances are given help and advice, rather than being closed down by banks and other operations that may wish to penalise them in that way. If we can do those things, this will be a good Bill.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous with his time. Does he agree that as all of us, as parliamentarians across the House, work with our local authorities to seek imaginative ways to address the shortage of housing, we need to be absolutely certain that those buildings that could readily be converted from retail to residential use, or in which the residential element could be extended, are not saddled with debts, burdens, judgments or whatever, which could preclude the successful delivery of that opportunity to increase the housing stock in sustainable locations in our town and city centres?

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend draws the House’s attention to another unintended consequence of the decision to implement the staircase tax, which could preclude people who may wish to bring a retail unit into operation as a housing unit, which is something we should all welcome. That demonstrates that we have an opportunity across the House for improvement in both these areas.

Finally, I hope that we can look sympathetically at introducing the empty homes premium in a way that does not penalise those who are improving properties, but does penalise those who are deliberately keeping them empty for no good reason, so that we bring homes back into use and they are used properly, as we would all like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I am simply amazed. My hon. Friend is blessed either with psychic ability or intuition. That is the very point that I was about to move on to. In Beechdale, one of the wards in my constituency—

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend seems to be saying something very nice and flattering to anybody who intervenes on him. As I have not had anything nice and flattering said to me today, I just thought that I would give him the opportunity to do so.

[Eddie Hughes]

All I can say is that I have been in the House for less than a year and I hope that, over the passage of time, I will develop the insight and eloquence of my hon. Friend. Unfortunately for the moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have to put up with this stuttering Brummie trying to work his way through his speech, and taking yet another intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I am not sure whether you noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that my hon. Friend might have tried to sneak in a French word, or possibly a Latin one, just to prove how clever he is and to completely wrong-foot me. But I am having none of it: I am going to ignore that part and just agree with the point that he made. Clearly, whatever legislation we introduce, it is important that it is efficacious. I think we heard that word earlier; it is not one I use frequently.

[Simon Hoare]

If there were a prize for modesty, my hon. Friend would be declared the victor ludorum.

[Eddie Hughes]

See, Madam Deputy Speaker, I told you—I have had to totally recalibrate with regard to the intellectual approach of other Members. We certainly do not use much Latin around the table in my house. It may not have been Latin; who knows? It is probably important that I return to the Bill.