English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Simon Opher Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors.

Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, then, why Labour keeps getting re-elected to mayoralties?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech.

The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude.

It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the world. For decades, Whitehall has made every major decision on growth and investment, while the communities impacted were too often an afterthought. This has left communities poorer and trapped, playing a game that they can never win. For regions such as mine, physically the furthest away in England, it has meant that we have felt removed from decisions and decision making. This Bill is a chance to change that failure.

In the north-east, during her first year, our Mayor Kim McGuinness has launched important local projects including tackling child poverty and bringing buses back into public control, but she is unable to tackle some of the big economic challenges that we face because she does not have the powers to change them. This Bill makes it easier for the Mayor to decide how local money is spent by putting the pen in local hands, so that our own priorities come first, rather than an agreed list made years ago with Whitehall. This will allow the Mayor to create a growth plan showing where investment is needed most, so that Westminster can follow that lead.

The north-east growth plan sets our priorities so that we can then work with this Government to deliver the projects identified. By creating these local growth plans, the Government can see the shared priorities in areas such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy and digital innovation. Regions are able to create a list of projects ready for investment; we know where the blockages are in our area because we live with them every single day.

Of course, one such priority that politicians, businesses and communities have identified for our region is the case of Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency—something I have spoken about many times in this place. It has already been identified as a priority, because upgrading it would not only address the misery that it causes for local people every day, but unlock investment in manufacturing, clean energy and housing and support business growth.

Alongside changes in the Green Book to a local place-based business case, we can ensure that we approach these priorities with a cross-departmental, mission-led approach. For too long, departmental silos have prevented a cross-Government approach, but now we can ensure that the likes of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury work together with regional leaders to deliver local priorities.

It is not just new mayoral powers that we benefit from. I am absolutely thrilled to see in the Bill steps to protect communities and community sport for the future. The Bill takes heavily from one that I introduced in May, creating a change to safeguard sporting assets of community value. It would automatically protect football clubs, leisure centres and other sports facilities by giving local communities the first chance to buy them if they go up for sale.

[Dr Opher]

Just briefly, as my hon. Friend explains about the sporting, economic and social interests, does she believe that environmental interests should also be taken into account? That would allow communities to claim other different types of funds and also to protect the environment.

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We should look at what communities prioritise and make considerations as to what they value.

Going back to sporting assets in particular, there are over 6,000 sports grounds in England alone. Protecting them under the current system is complex, buried in red tape and made far too difficult. It has meant that fewer than 100 sports facilities are protected community assets across the country, meaning that almost 99% of sports facilities across the country cannot be preserved if developers try to buy up land.

We want to give people the authority to make decisions about their own areas. This summer I was absolutely delighted to visit so many facilities in my constituency: Cramlington Rockets, Burradon Juniors and Backworth Hall cricket club, as well as working with the likes of Hazlerigg Victory, Wideopen football club and many more. These clubs and facilities are at the heart of our communities, providing not just sport but community activities, running holiday clubs and being a welcoming community space. They are the lifeblood of many of the villages and towns across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency. I am delighted that this Government are protecting these vital pillars in the community that are so important to local people.

For too long, Whitehall has left communities and regions like mine trapped and poorer because decisions were not taken with them in mind. This Government are changing that with the biggest shift of power out of Westminster to the north-east and my communities. It will boost growth, raise living standards and deliver services for local people. It is about giving power to those who know our communities best. I am delighted that this Labour Government are putting our regions, our communities and our neighbourhoods first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Delivering a more representative system locally, as well as one that empowers local government, is necessary now, given the palpable long-term frustration with decision making that is perceived by communities to be exclusively dictated by those confined to Planet Westminster or—especially in Falkirk—Planet Holyrood. We know from experience that devolution works best when it is rooted in economic regeneration, with a real impact on ordinary people’s lives. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in the Chamber, when he said that Scotland is a cautionary tale. The cautionary tale for local government from 19 years of SNP government is about what happens when we do nothing, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will vote for tonight.

Local leaders can more effectively deploy policy levers in the collective national interest. For instance, the transport procurement policies of Manchester and Liverpool’s mayors have delivered hundreds of orders from Falkirk’s bus manufacturer. That was essential, especially while our own devolved Scottish Government had their eye off the ball and on shiny new Chinese buses. When local leaders with popular mandates have been able to take charge of industrial strategy and regeneration, we see confidence return to communities that for decades have felt left behind. Reflecting on the centralising tendencies of my absent SNP colleagues, I observe that they have persistently ignored, constrained and harmed local authorities in Scotland. I am still waiting for the council tax abolition that I heard about in primary 3.

If we are asking our constituents to invest trust in their local leaders, and to engage in local decision making with the hope that it can change something, we must also take a microscope to the health of our democratic structures nationally. Turnout has been going down, and we know why: we keep hearing from folk on the doorstep that they do not think their vote changes anything.

[Dr Opher]

With the removal of first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, is it not time that we gave local government the option of dropping first past the post, as Wales has done? Is it not also time for a national commission on electoral reform?

[Euan Stainbank]

That is the point I was just about to get to. In 2022, I was elected as a local authority councillor in third place under the multi-member system, and it did work. Many people would not have gone to a different political party, or would not necessarily have come to speak to the Labour representative, but it helped that they had diverse representation. I do think it is worth looking at that system, as I was about to touch on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. That is why the provisions in the Bill concerning voting systems are welcome and why, to echo my hon. Friend, we should consider a national commission on electoral reform—a commitment to foster a national conversation about how we should be elected in modern Britain, and to build consensus and a way forward.

Different voting systems are already used across the country—for example, for the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for our councils and for mayoral elections here in England. Disillusionment did not start yesterday, and any change to a voting system will not solve the degree of disengagement that we have seen in communities, but it could allow people to see their views always reflected in the institutions that represent them, as we saw with Falkirk council under the multi-member ward system. Continuing to rely on a voting system nationally, when nearly two thirds of people want change, risks crystallising the disillusionment.

By formalising and extending devolution, the Government are today moving to strengthen trust at a local level. By engaging in a serious exercise about how we are sent to this place, we can go a long way towards renewing it at a national level too.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Simon Opher Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Just as people and communities should have rights, we need to stand up for the rights of nature. People want to see our rivers and waterways cleaned up and our environment protected—rivers such as the Tone in Taunton, where communities, by achieving new designations, have uncovered poor water quality and a desperate need for investment. Precious chalk streams across the country have no protection at all, and our amendment 16 would give them the protection they require. People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member is saying, but we all want to build faster. Under the local district plan in Stroud, we have been waiting four years for our housing plan, and this Bill will free us from the quagmire that is our current planning system. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and the Severn Rivers Trust, who have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that we should have a short pause on part 3 and keep some of it?

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly agree that part 3 requires amending. Our amendments seek to do that, as I will come to shortly.

People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions. Our new clause 2 would enforce the zero carbon standard for all new homes, on which the Liberal Democrats and Labour Ministers worked so hard before the Conservatives cancelled the whole zero carbon homes programme in 2015.

Political Donations

Simon Opher Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for opening this debate, and Mr Stone, who started the petition. May I also say to the parliamentarians present that the speeches today have been excellent? I have really enjoyed listening and I thank hon. Members for that. I also thank the 235 people in Stroud who signed the petition and the many more who have emailed me about their worries regarding political donations. I have spent a lot of the last two years knocking on doors and the most common theme has been, “You’re all the same—you’re all corrupt.” The lack of trust in politics was very alarming, and it is something that parliamentarians of all parties need to be aware of.

I would like to talk briefly about two issues: the financing of political parties and lobbying. In Stroud, we were supplied with a contract by a Tory councillor for personal protective equipment that was 85% faulty. People on the frontline were left with faulty equipment. We all wonder, but do not know, why that contract was issued. Something like £93 million has been donated to political parties, and two thirds of that was donated by 19 individuals in this country. Is it fair, in a democracy, that there is so much power in the hands of so few people? That is something of which we need to be aware. As many hon. Members have said, the external foreign donations are what brought this debate to a head, because we are all extremely alarmed by stories of hundreds of millions of pounds going to certain political parties.

I will not talk for very long because we have heard so many excellent speeches, but I would first ask if we should question whether the donations system is a good one on which to run our politics in the first place. Secondly, “know your donor” checks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned, are incredibly important. We must vet donors and make sure that the money is coming from a fair place. We need to look at all overseas donors. In fact, I would say that we need to ban any overseas donors to our political parties. I also believe in a cap on any political donations, if we are going to have political donations in the first place; £100,000 seems rather generous to me—we should bring that down.

Briefly, I want to talk about the influence of lobbying. This came as a slight shock to me. I became a politician having been a medic all my life. If we ever had any influence from the pharmaceutical companies, we totally ignored that evidence, yet as politicians we allow lobbyists to come and talk to us. I was on a platform talking about obesity, and there was even someone from Sainsbury’s supermarket on the platform. Is it right that we allow people to influence our policy in that way?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member hits on an important point. It is surely up to us all to judge the value of what we are told by any particular lobbyist. We listen to constituents who lobby us all the time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the lack of transparency about lobbying, not just of parliamentarians but of officials in government. Does he agree that a much more open and transparency register of lobbyists would be a big step forward?

[Dr Opher]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The lack of transparency is a key issue. In 2023, oil and gas lobbyists spoke to Tory MPs on average 1.4 times per day, so is it really any wonder that they are now stepping back from their commitment to net zero? We must stop that sort of influence in Parliament. We must take the evidence and respond in the right way.

We must restore trust in politics and reform how donations are made. We should look at the whole system of party funding and restore faith in politics.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Simon Opher Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. As she knows, the Bill includes a recommendation to set an industry standard, so that consumers can have confidence in what they are buying. Not only is the burden removed from homeowners and responsibility placed with developer, but the Bill creates an efficiency saving in human resources and materials. It is an entirely logical step to take. Installing solar panels on roofs while the houses are being built is at least 10% cheaper than retrofitting.

There will be issues around cost, which Members might raise in interventions or in speeches, but Government estimates put the cost of mandatory solar panels on all new homes at around £5,200 per home. That sounds like a lot of money in isolation, but the average cost of a new build in the final quarter of 2024 was far in excess of £400,000, so we are talking about little more than 1% of the price of a new build home. That is next to nothing in the context of a monthly mortgage repayment, if we take the figure in raw form, and it would be offset by lower bills.

This Bill would mandate that all new homes are built with solar generation technology covering the roof space—a minimum of 40% of the equivalent of the building’s ground-floor area.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I too am interested in solar panels being mandated on public buildings. In my area, Rednock school has had solar panels retrofitted. Solar panels in educational facilities have two effects: they not only save money for the school, but teach young people about the issue. Also in my area, the NHS is looking to put solar panels on all south-facing roofs of hospitals. I wonder if we could extend the Bill to public buildings in general.

[Max Wilkinson]

I take the hon. Member’s point on board entirely, and agree with him. This Bill is limited to residential new builds; I was very conscious that in the public sector, the cost of initial installation would be borne by the taxpayer. He was right to reference schools. In my constituency, Bournside school is installing a huge ground source heat pump. That is a national, leading case study. He is right that it is important that young people understand what is going on. With regard to industry standards, we need to make sure that there is an industry-wide regulator and a certification scheme. The industry needs proper regulation to give consumers confidence in the product.

Supply chains were mentioned. To give supply chains, the construction industry and developers time to adjust, the Bill proposes that the regulations apply from 1 October 2026. Ministers may have comments on whether that is a realistic timescale—they might want to make it longer. I am sure that there will be a discussion.

Reasonable exemptions need to apply, including for very tall buildings; for buildings on which it would not be economical to install solar panels, due to roof size or other factors; and for buildings that had other forms of renewable energy generation installed that were more appropriate for that setting. Where buildings cannot physically accommodate solar panels that cover at least 40% of the building’s ground-floor area, the Bill requires that solar panels are installed to the maximum extent possible.

It is important to take part in some myth busting. To dispel one big myth about solar panels, they do not always need a clear, sunny day to work; they will continue to work in overcast, cloudy conditions. I think we can all agree that that is good news for this country. To dispel another myth, solar panels can be installed to good effect on north-facing roofs, although efficiency will be a little lower.

The overwhelming strength of the case for the measure means that the sunshine Bill has gathered support from industry. Over Christmas, several businesses and industry organisations signed an open letter to the Government in which they declared their support for the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the MCS Foundation, Solar Energy UK, Eco2Solar, E.ON Next and Ecotricity. I am particularly grateful to the MCS Foundation for its assistance and advice on technical matters in these last few months.