Disadvantaged Communities

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I think we would all agree that it is a basic human right to have a decent place to call home, a neighbourhood where one feels safe, an opportunity to earn a decent living, access to healthcare and a clean environment. If people have those things, they can thrive and, together, form communities that then flourish. If we empower people to take decisions locally, those communities will make choices that lift up the people in them and protect their local environment.

However, under the last Government, it was made harder for communities to take those decisions. Their resources were slashed and they were forced to compete with each other, with towns set against each another in bidding wars through short-term, race-to-the-bottom policies. The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that the Labour Government plan to take decisions away from communities, using the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove local authorities’ power to have a say in planning. We are worried about how proposals for local government reorganisation may move decisions on local services further away from people and their neighbourhoods.

The proposal to provide three-year settlements for councils is reassuring, but only if the funding covers the true cost of providing the services people need—not knowing three years out that the council will be forced to reduce its services is not helpful. Although the 2025-26 settlement offered some additional funding, in many councils—particularly those with high levels of social care spending—the Labour Government’s jobs tax, which increased employers’ national insurance contributions, was not fully reimbursed. The same was true of the packages for fire authorities, and the issue was particularly problematic where high levels of on-call firefighters were on the payroll, meaning that those authorities were seriously disadvantaged.

Turning to the mission-critical neighbourhoods, it is absolutely right that there is a Labour focus—sorry, a laser focus, although I appreciate that there is a Labour focus—on lifting them up and drawing them into every part of society, not just to improve people’s lives, but because if those places are economically active, healthy and safe, the rest of us benefit too.

I want to focus on two main issues for communities: housing and transport. We all know that, for years, people around the country—and not just in those neighbourhoods—have given up. They have given up on the chance of owning a home or of even renting a decent place to call home. They have given up on the opportunity to bring up children and have a meaningful career.

In many rural areas, which may not make up the most deprived areas, there are pockets of extreme poverty that are completely forgotten. There are farmers whose children underperform in schools and are loaned their school uniforms; they live in homes that have not been updated for 60 years.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talked about communities being overlooked because they are contained within wealthier communities. My constituency is in the outer London borough of Sutton, which, by London standards, is on the wealthier end. We have two distinct communities in St Helier and Roundshaw, and those estates absolutely need more support, but they consistently get overlooked because of the way that local government funding works. First, it is on a borough-wide basis, so when the deprivation scores are added up, they are not entitled to much. Secondly, the indices used are extremely outdated and fail to take account of the true cost of housing.

Housing prices in London and the south-east have skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and the indices do not take that into account, which means the average Londoner is now worse off than the average person in many other regions of the country, once we take housing costs into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever reforms we make to better target resources at disadvantaged communities, we must ensure that local government funding formulas take housing costs properly into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there are micro-communities within communities that look wealthy from the outside, and I will come on to some local examples.

In rural and coastal areas, employment opportunities are incredibly limited, as the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said, with seasonal jobs in limited sectors of agriculture and hospitality. The homes have been snapped up by those fortunate enough to own two or more properties, as we heard from Members representing various areas of Cornwall. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the loophole closed on holiday lets, to ensure that they pay council tax, and it is why we want to see the introduction of a separate planning use for both holiday lets and second homes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so that we can secure the homes we need for our teachers, carers and police officers, and our farmers are better able to use their assets on their properties to support agricultural workers, so that we can provide food security.

The Government’s move away from the rural services grant has been devastating for so many communities and needs to be urgently rethought. As stated by the Dorset Community Foundation last year in its “Hidden Dorset” report:

“On the face of it Dorset is a beautiful, vibrant county but scratch the surface and underneath there are areas that are among the most deprived in the UK.”

There are 17,100 children in Dorset living in absolute poverty—not relative, but absolute poverty—and I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) will know where some of those communities are. This is in a place that is not considered a mission-critical area.

The plan for 1.5 million homes is laudable, but the Government must refocus on having the right homes in the right places. The lack of focus on social homes is deeply disappointing, especially for a Labour Government, and I encourage the Department to commit to at least 150,000 homes for social rent, as the Liberal Democrats have. We already have a large number of homes lying empty—1.2 million—and the Liberal Democrats have heard little about what is being done to bring them back into use.

Today’s announcement on transport is great news for some communities, but many are still being forgotten. People living in most of the south-west—and it would appear from the latest announcement that the south-west stops at Bristol—have no access to trains, and where they do have a bus, it only comes a couple of times a day. How exactly are those who cannot afford a private car supposed to get to work? Those aged 16-plus cannot get to school or college. One constituent in Bere Regis in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole had to give up an apprenticeship because there was simply no way to get there. Families living on the minimum wage cannot spare the budget to pay for driving lessons—of course, it is not possible to get a driving test either—or insurance, which can run into thousands of pounds.

Will the Government correct the injustice created when the age of participation was increased by ensuring that home-to-school transport is funded to 18 and accepting Lib Dem proposals to create a young person’s bus card, giving under-25s significant discounts on bus fares? Rural areas are most in need of the bus fare cap, so we hope it will be extended, as journeys are often long and require two or more routes to be used, not just in England but across the United Kingdom—including rural Wales, where, oddly, a project between Oxford and Cambridge was badged as an England and Wales project, potentially costing Wales millions of pounds.

Finally, I want to align myself with the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. We must eradicate child poverty. I share the frustrations of others that the strategy has been delayed, and I hope this means that we will have a much more meaningful document which includes the removal of the two-child benefit cap. These children have done nothing to find themselves in the position of having multiple siblings, and I hope the Government will grasp the nettle and deliver real change for our forgotten neighbourhoods and our next generation.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is unacceptable that this dispute has dragged on into a ninth week. Even more disgraceful, the people of Birmingham are now forced to clean up their own streets. I thank those who gave up their Easter holidays to pick up rubbish for their neighbours but, let us be honest, they should never have had to do it.

This goes way beyond Birmingham. It started with an equal pay claim that bankrupted the council, and with widespread local government reorganisation ahead of us all, what will stop it from happening again? As councils merge, staff will sit side by side doing the same jobs but on completely different pay from each other. That is unjust, unsustainable and a ticking timebomb. Six years after the reorganisation of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, which I led, pay harmonisation is still going on. We could not afford to meet everyone’s expectations, and neither can most councils, which teeter on the edge. What is the Minister doing to stop this from spiralling elsewhere and to protect residents from eye-watering tax hikes or devastating service cuts?

[Jim McMahon]

I want to be careful not to stray too far from Birmingham, which is not affected by local government reorganisation. However, it is completely usual, when looking at the transfer of the workforce, for negotiations to take place with workers and trade unions to harmonise terms and conditions and pay. That will take place in the usual way. We need to be careful not to set hares running unnecessarily.

The issue in Birmingham—the foundational issue, in a way—is equal pay. For far too long, women workers were paid far less than their male counterparts for comparable roles—that went on for decades. The council has to resolve that, as other councils did many years earlier. Women cannot continue to be paid less than their male counterparts. In the end, this is about harmonisation done in the right way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Last month, I was in a field near the East Carr estate in Hull. With the River Humber in the distance, the field lay submerged under water and sat clearly below sea level. Residents told me that the field acts as a barrier between their homes and the water, and they were really worried that the planned development, which is in the Hull local plan, will leave them with flooded homes. Can the Minister reassure me, and residents in Hull and other low-lying communities, that the Government will ensure that the land use framework for determining areas for development will consider flood risk management and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took action on SUDS in the national policy planning framework, and we have made very welcome improvements in that area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on the land use framework. I take it that the hon. Lady has submitted her views, and we will publish the response to that consultation in due course.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.

We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.

The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.

I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.

I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.

The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Government for bringing the Bill forward, but I have to put on record some of my concerns—the Minister will not be surprised. He knows that it is never meant in an aggressive way; I put things forward in this way because it is important that my constituents have a chance to express themselves through me in this Chamber.

First, I echo the concerns of the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrats spokesperson in relation to hospitals and medical and dental schools. I have some concern over how that will trickle down, as it will inevitably, and put pressure on sectors where it does not need to be. The job of those three areas is to ensure that our hospitals can deliver the care and our medical and dental schools can produce the students with the expertise and knowledge to be the next generation of those who look after us.

My major concern, however, is about private schools. I know the point has been echoed many times, but I cannot let this occasion go without making my remarks, on which I have sought the direction of Madam Deputy Speaker and other parties. Members will be aware of the issue with private schools, and I have spoken about it on numerous times to put forward the argument for the faith schools in my constituency. Parents scrimp and save to ensure that their children can go to those schools and have the standard of education that they wish for them, and they have asked me to put that on record. The reason I persist in raising the issue is that I truly believe that some people of faith will be further disadvantaged when the Bill goes through. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but it will be the reality, and for that reason I must put it on record.

Although the rating provisions will not apply in Northern Ireland per se, the disadvantage to our sector remains in the removal of the tax considerations, which will affect schools in Northern Ireland. That is where the issue is. For the mainland, the effect is quite clear, but schools in Northern Ireland will be affected as well. I wish to be clear that I oppose these provisions on behalf of faith-based schools on the mainland as well, because parents of children at those schools want the same as those who spoke to me.

I am a very proud member of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I believe that that extends to parents’ freedom to educate their child with a view to how their faith is worked into that education. Lords amendment 15 has been referred to by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). For many parents, confidence that their faith will not be dismantled in the classroom is worth the financial burden of paying into their child’s education, but that is being denied by this legislation. I believe that they all deserve the opportunity to educate their child in a way that they wish, for which they will probably pay handsomely, but these proposals will adversely affect parents’ freedom to educate their child in their religious belief.

The option to home-school is one that parents may not have considered previously, yet may now feel is the only financial option available for them. Those parents may not feel qualified or equipped to deal with the skills that are vital to home-schooling, yet believe there to be no option as they simply cannot afford to pay the uplifted fees. That is the unfair burden that falls on the shoulders of those parents.

I firmly believe that the Government disagree with almost every Lords amendment because the Lords amendments interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and the application of local revenues. The Commons does not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient. Basically that means, “We need the money.” I have been a Member of this House for almost 15 years and an elected representative for some 40 years as a councillor and a member of the Assembly, and never, ever have I believed that money is the bottom line, and I do not believe that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that. We cannot take faith-based education out of the hands of a certain class of people to punish those high-class schools with swimming pools. Let me assure the House that Bangor Independent Christian school, with its Sunbeams nursery schools, has no pool. Regent House prep in my constituency has no swimming pool either. There are small primary schools that will have difficulty operating when these regulations come into force, and that is simply not right.

I know that the strength of the Labour Government means that this Bill will pass, but I am urging individual MPs across the House to consider who will be punished and to urge the Government to review this tax raid on education, even at this late hour. We believe in the right to live one’s faith, and we cannot tax that right out of reach. That is where this Bill has gone wrong, and has divorced itself from the reality of the people that I represent.

Birmingham City Council

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind Members that if they are seeking to contribute in a statement, they must arrive on time. It is extremely discourteous to the Minister, and indeed to the House, to be late.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran all the way from the top floor of Derby Gate, but I was not fast enough. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an elected member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

The people of Birmingham have a right to receive decent services, and it is critical that the ongoing dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), we are concerned about the impact on public health and the environment, and urge the Government to confirm that when waste collection resumes, it will be safely disposed of and recycled where possible, and not just given to the cheapest bidder.

Fundamentally, the Conservative Government slashed funding to local authorities year on year, forcing councils to do more with less and plunging so many, of all political stripes, into financial crisis. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not yet addressed some of the financial crises, particularly around confirmation of the special educational needs override, which I know councils across the nation are really worried about, and which is making it more difficult for them to make decisions about their future plans.

We welcome the multi-year settlements, which I am sure the Minister will refer to, but we remain concerned about how effective they will be. Two recent examples give us cause for concern: the roads funding, which appears to give local authorities more money, actually cuts England’s road repair budget by 5%; and the employer’s national insurance change, which promised to cover councils’ costs for direct staffing in full, did not do so in some cases, including for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. All that is underpinned by a broken council tax system that is regressive. In some areas, the council tax base is totally inadequate to provide for the growing list of services, and the Lib Dems want to see a radical overhaul.

Birmingham should serve as a lesson for the Government, because this matter is a result of the long-running equal pay crisis. What learning are they taking from the situation in Birmingham, and what extra measures is the Minister introducing to prevent public health and community safety issues?

[Jim McMahon]

I am pleased to say that we are making sure that we deal with the waste piling up in the streets and that the council gets the support it needs, but the hon. Lady is right to say that there is an interrelationship. This dispute does not sit in isolation; it is part of wider considerations on equal pay, and we have to bear in mind that the cost of meeting the equal pay liability for the people of Birmingham is £1 billion. There can be no steps forward in this dispute that double down on the inherent problems that led to the equal pay crisis that the city has faced. These are sensitive negotiations, but it is important that the council continues to negotiate and that people get around the table to find a way through.

The hon. Lady talks about the multi-year settlement that is being prepared for and the simplification of the funding mechanism, but she also mentions redistribution. Birmingham and councils like it have not found themselves in this situation in a vacuum; it has been partly driven by central Government not distributing money in a fair way to deal with service need and deprivation, and it is very important that we get the money to where that deprivation exists. Even under the current one-year settlement, Birmingham has had a 9.8% increase—in cash, that is £131 million.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 General Committees

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Hobhouse. As the Committee knows, the Lib Dems are unhappy with the decision to cancel local elections in May. We think it is a denial of democracy. I have concerns about two specific things.

The first relates to the examples that have been given of other places where elections have been postponed: Somerset, Cumbria and places like that. In such places, that was discussed and decided at a local level over quite a long period. A number of options were discussed with local people, consultations took place, a lot of data went around and there was to-ing and fro-ing between local areas and Government about which option would go forward. At the end of that, the Government took a decision that some people liked and some people did not. Decisions about who to vote for were made on that basis.

In this case, the voices of local people have not been heard at all. Neither at the general election last year, nor on the last occasion that those people had the chance to vote, was this even a twinkle in the Minister’s eye. We knew that mayors were coming, but we did not know that local government reorganisation was. Therefore, those people have not had their chance to express a preference for this type of reorganisation. This case is therefore different. That is the main reason I have concerns.

On my other concern, I have a question that I hope the Minister can answer. I am aware that some wobbling is going on already in at least one of these areas. If there are any wobbles, or concerns that these reorganisations are not ready to go for an election in May 2026, what will happen? If this is indeed a delay of a year and the new authority is not in place for elections in any of these places, so an election takes place in May 2026 on what is currently there, the Government will have undermined their values, because people will be electing something that they are about to abolish. I am not convinced, given that there has been no consultation, that there is a guarantee that every single one of these reorganisations will happen and every one of these councils will be ready to go by May next year.

For those reasons, we will oppose the statutory instrument, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

We have tried to strike a balance between answering the demand—the fact that all 21 counties have submitted to the interim phase is testament to the support in the system for this—and finding enough of a framework at a national level so that areas know what to report to, while building enough flexibility to take into account that England is very different in its construct and make-up. There are huge variations between urban centres, rural communities and coastal communities. In forming local authorities that have a clear anchor that can be understood and respected by the local community, we have to allow for flexibility in that system.



The statutory invitation that went out was clear that that means population sizes of 500,000 as a starting point, but we have been clear with the County Councils Network, the Local Government Association and the District Councils’ Network, and in trade press interviews, that we will see a range. Some will say that the mid-300,000s is right for them, and we are seeing some city districts looking at moving their boundaries outwards. But others will say, “Actually, our county does not have that characteristic—we haven’t got that city anchor or coastal issue that might be present elsewhere—and we think the best option for our place is maybe 600,000 or 700,000”.

We want to be flexible enough to take into account local representations as we receive them. Our working assumption is that when all that balances out, we will end up with an average of 500,000, but who knows? We need to see the submissions that come in, but flexibility is important, and it challenges the idea that this is a top-down, mandatory system of uniform councils that all look the same, regardless of local circumstances. It is not that. It is very important nationally that we give the framework and direction—and we have done that—but this is about co-operation and partnership. I appreciate that that point has been picked up on.

We have been clear about our willingness to drive forward to deliver this vision, and to work with local councils to support communities to fix the foundation of local government in delivering that ambition. Alongside the English devolution White Paper, I wrote to all places in the 21 areas inviting them to express a clear commitment to delivering to the most ambitious timeframe, and to flag any requests for a delay in elections to take place.

Where authorities made such a request, we have judged it to meet a very high bar that was rightly set, and we have kept our commitment that clear leadership locally would have to be met with an active partner at a national level. We have taken the necessary decisions to postpone local elections where it will help to smooth the transition process and deliver the benefits of mayoral devolution, supported by strong and stable local government reorganisation as quickly as possible. We are now working with those areas to prioritise in parallel the necessary steps to explore the establishment of new mayoral authorities in time for the May 2026 mayoral elections, and to deliver plans for new unitary local government.

On devolution, public consultations are already under way, running from 17 February to 13 April in these areas. More than 12,500 responses have already been received in that process. We are getting on with delivering reorganisation as well. All district and county councillors in the two-tier areas, and their neighbouring smaller unitary authorities, were invited, and I am pleased to say that every area—comprising of councils of all political stripes—has responded to the invitation to reorganise. They shared with Government an interim plan containing updates on their thinking about options for creating new unitary councils. The response demonstrates without doubt the groundswell consensus from communities that change is overdue and needed. Earlier this week, I made a written statement setting out the details of this, providing parliamentary transparency and supporting the commitment we made to ensure there was active reporting during the course of the process.

Local engagement with Members of Parliament, public sector providers, residents and other key local partners will now be led by the councils as they develop detailed proposals to establish strong, stable unitary councils that are fit for the future. This order is essential to allow the first wave of this ambitious programme to be delivered. It grants postponements for 12 months only, and only for the nine councils whose requests met the high bar we set.

We are extremely clear that these decisions were made on the basis of local requests to free up capacity and enable the practical steps needed, which would not be feasible so quickly if the 2025 local elections went ahead in those areas, for reasons that are self-evident. These areas have demonstrated the clear and strong local leadership and the necessary ambition to drive forward the programmes to the timelines that the Government have set out to deliver for those areas, including taking the difficult decisions that are needed.

Let me address the points that have been made. I sense that a lot of the debate today has picked this process out as being unusual in English local government, but it is not. Members will know that between 2019 and 2022, 30 sets of elections were cancelled: 17 to allow preparatory work for local government reorganisation, which is what we are talking about here, and 13 as part of legislation to allow the unitarisation process to take place after the proposals had been submitted. So this is not unusual; it is a natural part of the cycle to free up capacity and enable those proposals to be developed— I can go through the list, and provide the details in writing.

But I do think we need to be careful here. First of all, we absolutely believe that this is the right thing to do, and that is not because we have an ideological view about how local government should sit. All the Members in this room are here because we care about local government and local communities, and we cannot have a hand-to-mouth funding regime where local government is just not sustainable. We have to find a solution that really fixes the foundations, and this is one small part of that—there is a lot more we need to do—but it is important. If we did everything else but not this, it would just not hold together. I think that it would devalue—I will be honest and direct about this—the work that local leaders have put into this at a local level to build consensus and show leadership. I am not talking about exclusively Labour leaders; in many areas, they are Conservative, Liberal Democrat or independent. We have a collective responsibility to at least mirror the leadership that they have shown across political parties in the interests of their communities, and to reflect that here in the national Parliament. I do not think that is too much to ask.

[Vikki Slade]

For clarification, I do not think we would object to the process or intent of reorganisation— I have been through it as a local leader, but the process was quite different. I am thinking about the suddenness and the shortness, and my concern is about consultation in advance of the decision to take this particular route. When Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and Dorset were merged in 2019, I think the process started in 2016, and then went through a local referendum in one place, which actually said, “No, thank you.” That went ahead anyway, but the decision was taken after a period of consultation. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether local consultation in advance of a decision to cancel an election would have been a better option, had time allowed.

[Jim McMahon]

To be clear, there is not time to do that. In the finance settlement this year, I think we have done a good job in building a bridge to the multi-year settlement, but it is only a bridge. That does not answer the fundamental, underlying questions that are leading to the financial vulnerabilities of local councils.

We have had a cash injection—£5 billion of new money is not insignificant—and it has made a significant difference. Introducing £600 million for a recovery grant gets the money to areas that need it most. That is reflected in the fact that we have not had a single section 114 notice issued as a result of financial distress. But let us be clear: 30 local authorities needed exceptional financial support through the budget process, so a lot of work is required here.

As we move to the multi-year settlement, we have to reconcile reorganisation within the lifetime of the three-year multi-year settlement, so that at the end of the settlement, the transition has been completed, the funding has been settled and all councils in England are on a firm footing for the future. Had we waited, we would not have achieved that, and we would have allowed the reorganisation to go beyond the multi-year settlement. I think that would have provided more uncertainty for a system that is quite fragile at the moment, when actually, it needs certainty and direction. We are not doing this because we are gung-ho, but because we believe that these structural reforms are needed and necessary.

I absolutely believe not just in consultation, but in collaboration and co-operation. That is about how ideas and proposals can be co-produced. It is for local areas to do that. There will be a statutory consultation on the proposal, and that will happen as a matter of course. But in the end, it is for local areas to make sure that they are having those local conversations and are coming forward to the Government with proposals that mirror what the local desire is, within the art of the possible. I have confidence that local leaders have that shared commitment, too.

This order, which was laid on the 11 February, is essential to delivering the Government’s commitment on devolution and reorganisation to the fastest possible timescale, for the reasons that I have set out. The order was made using delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here, and have been previously used in the same way. All the appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent were carefully followed. Nothing is being imposed on local areas—the Government are committed to the devolution priority programmes, and the emerging proposals for the new unitary councils are, by their nature and result, bottom-up. All requests for election delays to deliver reorganisation and devolution to the fastest possible timeframe follow direct requests from local leaders of the affected councils.

Devolution and strong councils with the right powers will mean that hard-working councillors and mayors can focus on delivering for their residents on a stable financial footing. It will strengthen the democratic accountability of local government to local residents. A final point that I have not covered is the ordering of by-elections that will take place. The guidance will set out that by-elections will be dealt with in the usual way; they will not be affected by this order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

[Vikki Slade]

Actually, the Liberal Democrats took over after a long time when the whole area had been run by the Conservatives, and so picked up a complete car crash.

[Lewis Cocking]

The area is under Liberal Democrat control now, and they have gone for a massive council tax increase of 7.5%, even though when the Prime Minister launched his local election campaign he said everyone’s council tax would be frozen. I will leave that there.

When we talk about the millions of pounds to be saved through local government reorganisation, we need to be very careful about the figures we use, because that is not the answer to all the local government questions. We need to look at population size again, and really I want the Minister to comment on capacity in the civil service. If we managed three areas over three years with strong local support, how will the Government be able to do nine within 12 months—having elections and making sure all the structures are in place—and what happens to people’s right to vote in those areas, if it goes on for longer than 12 months?

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate.

It was deeply disappointing to hear this week about the bodies being removed as statutory consultees. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Although it is deeply regrettable that we are taking away rights from organisations like Sport England, I hope that will make space for the water companies. We have been calling for them to be statutory consultees for a long time.

Although water companies have a statutory duty to connect all new homes to the sewerage system, it seems quite ridiculous that, apart from us, nobody seems able to speak up in our communities to say that there is no capacity left in the system. If water companies are not allowed to say no, how can we make sure that there is enough space?

I have been working with the local water company, Wessex Water, and a fantastic campaigner, Bill Burridge, to deal with a problem in the village of Merley. The community was built predominantly in the ’70s and ’80s, and the sewerage system is already at bursting point—literally. Most of the homes were built at a time when the surface water was allowed to go into the sewerage system. As a result, whenever it rains a brown sludge washes across the Stour Valley way, which is a well-used leisure route, and directly into the nature park and the River Stour, exactly where the local rowing club trains and the Wimborne angling club fishes. It is beyond ridiculous—you can see the two side by side.

Six hundred new homes are about to be built at the location, between the existing homes and the river, which will increase the capacity the community needs by 25%. Although some section 106 obligations are in place, there appears to be little enforcement. When we told the people at the sewerage company that some of the houses were already occupied, they said, “Oh, we will get a project team down there to see whether things need to be upgraded.” It really was laughable. If the Government are serious about getting homes occupied, the water companies need to be required to act before the homes are ready to go, so that we do not end up with situations in which homes are waiting for connections and for sewerage systems to be upgraded.

There is another problem that affects not only people moving into new homes but the people already living there. As water companies are being forced to repair the sewers and reduce the spills, the surface water that has been flowing through the systems, often for decades, is now backing up in people’s gardens. The houses were built long ago, the concrete has been laid and there is absolutely nowhere for all this excess water to go. There is water from the ground and water from the surface. Homes in Broadstone, including in the Springdale area, are finding their gardens unusable, and houses slightly further down the hill are using sandbags to prevent the water from flooding into their homes and gardens, despite the fact they are around 5 miles from the nearest river. The water companies say it is not their problem because they are fixing their drains and sewers, and the councils say it is not their problem because it is not public land. Whose responsibility is it? Homeowners cannot be suddenly faced with gardens that are underwater.

Like the homes my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire mentioned, homes in Broadstone have seen sewage bubbling up, sometimes in their living rooms. The only reason the water companies have given us is that they are the oldest homes in the area and are closer to the water treatment plant, and therefore when all the new homes are connected they have to face the consequences of inadequate systems. The water companies have absolutely no answer. Individual homeowners are expected to put up with it, and the only new investment is where the new homes are. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the water companies and developers are providing for the homes that are already in communities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Every day, another family contact my office because they are homeless, and they are placed in a hostel, with no functioning kitchen and no private bathroom, miles away from their children’s schools. I am sure that other hon. Members can say the same. What is worse is that the placements cost councils at least three times as much as permanent social homes. So-called affordable homes are of no use to these families at all. At the same time, new homes are being rejected by registered housing providers because the standards are not high enough. What are the Government doing to progress the future homes standard, so that the homes being built are not rejected by registered home providers, who say that the homes are not good enough for them, and will have to be retrofitted?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making. I refer her to my previous answer. The Government intend to bring forward, through changes to building regulations, future standards that will increase the energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements on new build homes. That will give housing associations, in particular, that have got ahead of the changes and standards the comfort that they need to start adopting those units.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Homelessness stats published last week show that rough sleeping has increased for the third year in a row and is now 91% higher than in 2021, yet the Vagrancy Act 1824 has not been repealed and rough sleeping is still a criminal offence. In July 2024, the Minister was asked for a progress report and advised that consideration of relevant legislation was needed, but it is now more than three years since Parliament voted to repeal the Act. Will she now give us a date when that will come into force?

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

We are taking urgent action to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping and have announced £60 million to tackle winter pressures. We will update the House on progress in repealing the Vagrancy Act in due course.

High Street Rental Auctions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), on securing this important debate. It is great to see four new Members from Dorset here this afternoon, which shows what a fantastic place it is to visit. I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) that high streets are, of course, the beating heart and the identity of a place, but they also hold—as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) mentioned—the communal memory of the people who live in, work in and visit a place.

I remember the high street of my youth, in a little town in Edenbridge, Kent. I used to visit the independent chemist, which doubled as a gift shop, to buy presents for my mum—I am sure she never liked them—and I would go to the big town for summer holiday shopping with stores like C&A and Chelsea Girl, and department stores like Allders and Debenhams. But those high streets were symptoms of their time, and I am sure that our grandparents would have been shocked by the identikit towns that we have had over so many years. It might be right and proper that some of those brands have succumbed to what is going on now—there is the negativity around online buying but also the trend toward second-hand and vintage shopping, which is actually quite a positive move.

Almost 13,000 retailers shut their shops last year, and according to a recent report, retail institutes warned that a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape means that one in 10 shop-floor jobs are expected to disappear by 2028. We need to make these moves with that as a background. But many places are bucking the trend and I hate to be negative about places, so even Bournemouth—which has had so much negativity—has had increase in footfall of 12.5% year on year. We need to congratulate those amazing businesses that are making the difference.

We must also think about what the high street means for us now: a combination of shopping, entertainment, living, working, playing, studying and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) says, post offices. We Lib Dems welcome all the ideas to shape and support our high streets and town centres. Of course, local and national governments have a vital role to play, but the issue is not rent; it is business rates. Landlords say that rates are now higher than the rents that they can command in many cases, so a scheme that addressed that would be the most welcome. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about the new lower rate for retail, hospitality and leisure, but we need something substantially different from the current model.

I entered politics a long time ago on a local level to reform business rates, so it is great that I have finally made it to this position, and can hopefully make an impact. Lib Dems want to see business rates replaced with a commercial landowner levy to create a more level playing field, shifting the responsibility from tenant to landlord, and also ensuring that high streets can compete against businesses that do not have the same overheads. In abolishing the broken business rates system, we would look to tax the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, because that is the problem—at the moment, we tax business investment, which impacts productivity and wages. The biggest impact would be on small businesses in deprived areas. They would then be a part of the regeneration of a space through wider community development, which can work alongside rental auctions. We welcome the current discussion paper on business rates reform. Can the Minister update us on when we can expect that to move forward?

On the rental auction initiative, the Lib Dems are concerned about the potential costs of the scheme for local authorities. Although the programme has funding allocated to it, it is not clear whether local authorities would be able to use this to take on leases to help them to enable business growth and start-ups to take off. There is no doubt about the financial burden on councils at the moment, and I am deeply concerned about whether there is the capacity and desire in some places to deliver something on the scale that is needed.

The industry also has doubts about the new auction system and whether it will have the desired effect. I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about hospitality fit-outs. Someone can spend £30,000 just like that on a small independent café, and that money is not going to come from just anywhere, particularly in the limited amount of time that these auction leases will be arranged for.

The funding available to create vacancy lists is welcome. Economic development teams have an amazing opportunity to drive the vision for their area forward; I am concerned that landlords may not understand the other innovative uses for their buildings, whereas a local authority has the ability to go out and scout for other businesses that might want to come into an area. There is an opportunity through the scheme if the funding can be used in a more flexible way. I am interested to know how councils can use the funding if they do not have property that they can put forward and auction now, but want to get ahead of the game. Any building sitting empty for more than 12 months is a long time, and the rot will already be setting in, so getting ahead of the game would be really useful.

A local council also shared that the high street rental auction is a big stick with which to beat up landlords who are not willing to engage. I read in The Business Times of a business lawyer who said:

“The question however remains: are we genuinely operating within a market of idle landlords who require this intervention? If the regulations only offer a solution for the minority and do not tackle the root cause of a greater economic issue around demand and affordability…these detailed provisions may not be the ‘breath of new life’ the government envisages.”

I am also concerned that the power will not do very much in small towns. It is understandable that the big towns such as Mansfield and Bournemouth might well see some benefit from this, but smaller places such as Broadstone or Wareham, or even Swanage and Wellington, might actually be invisible to the big councils as they look to the areas with a significant problem. One or two long-standing empty buildings in those smaller towns can have just as much of an impact, but they are unlikely to be worthwhile with the moneys coming to councils to make the scheme work.

My final point is on the reasons a property might be empty—there may be very good reasons. If councils are to use this power effectively, we must help landlords to bring properties into use if they simply cannot afford to do so otherwise. The high street rental auction requires landlords to bring properties up to the minimum energy efficiency standards—if they do not, they potentially face criminal prosecution. That could cripple landlords financially. What plans are there to support landlords who may wish to improve their stock but for whom doing so is not commercially viable?

Across my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency, businesses have cited the huge costs associated with operating, which are affecting confidence and putting them off investing in physical property. Soaring energy costs, the increase in national insurance contributions, worries about the impacts of some measures in the Employment Rights Bill and international insecurity mean that taking on a high street premises is probably more difficult right now than it has been for a long time. What considerations are the Government offering to businesses that want to invest but are worried about then having an immediate revaluation of their rates—as in the case of Hall and Woodhouse, which I raised last month?

Without sustainable financial support for councils to eliminate the other issues around town centres, from rough sleeping to public transport initiatives and funding for police to deal with antisocial behaviour, I fear that the scheme may have a minimal effect and be counterproductive. It is a good start: I give credit to the previous Government for starting it, and I hope this Government will finish it, but I would like to know how it will be made more interesting and effective for a broader range of towns.

English Devolution and Local Government

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her speech, but I am disappointed that we read the list of cancelled elections on social media, well before it was made available to Parliament. How was that allowed to happen?

A key pillar of our democracy is the right to vote, with people making a mark for the person they want to represent them. The Conservative councils that asked for and have been granted the right to cancel their elections have created crises in special educational needs and have let their residents down. The Conservatives should have been kicked out of county halls last May, as they were kicked out of government last summer, but now those councils have been given the right to help design the new authorities. The plan, which also signals the end of district councils, is completely undemocratic.

We welcome the move to mayoral authorities—it is in train and, as a former council leader, I know councils were already working on it—but there is no democratic mandate for the cancelling of councils in ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester, the previous capital of England. That was not in the Labour manifesto. What active role will those districts have in the co-production of the new unitary authorities? When will those district councils cease to exist? For priority areas such as Surrey and Hampshire, what assurance will the Secretary of State give that the elections will not take place after May 2026? For places that have had their own authority for hundreds or even thousands of years, what support will be provided to develop meaningful town councils with statutory powers, so that the identity of places such as Winchester can be maintained forever?

[Angela Rayner]

I am disappointed when things are on social media first. I respect this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have come here at the earliest opportunity to update the House.

On the cancelled elections, councillors in those areas are elected, and we have delayed for reorganisation only under exceptional circumstances, where councils have come forward. As I have made absolutely clear, the delay is for a year, from May 2025 to May 2026. As I stated earlier, I turned down many more councils because I believe that democracy is crucial. There is an active role for district councils. We are working with districts and local authorities to ensure that the consultation period and reorganisation are being done with them, not being done to them. It is incredibly important to stress that.