English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as usual, Ms Vaz. I want to make a quick remark, notwithstanding the fact that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, may want to speak to this. Briefly, I welcome that the Minister’s and the Government’s recommendations, contained in schedule 5. The Minister does not know those of us on the Opposition Benches too well at the moment—she will do by the end of this Bill Committee—but, if she can get my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to agree to extra regulation, that is absolutely good enough for me. He is well known as somebody with strongly held views about the role of the state in local government from when he ran his excellent local authority and administration. The Minister has managed to achieve something that I, as his Whip, have never managed to achieve.

I welcome this sensible piece of regulation. One of the things I welcome in the Bill is the assurance the Minister has given, and which is set out within the House of Commons Library paper, that it would grant strategic authorities and county or unitary authorities where a strategic authority does not exist. That is a sign that the Government are listening to the wants of local authorities—as the previous Government did when they licensed pedicabs, for example, with my former colleague Nickie Aiken getting that Bill through. I wanted to place on the record that I believe this is a welcome piece of regulation—but the Minister should not get too carried away and start making regulations everywhere willy-nilly.

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

I have nothing to add, apart from the fact that this is a good addition; but the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned pedicabs, and I cannot let that go by without asking the Minister to look again at that issue, because they are absolutely blighting the part of London where we work, making tourists’ lives utterly miserable, and contravening virtually every traffic law I have seen, with little enforcement. If there is any opportunity to go further on pedicabs, bring it on.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It seems to the Opposition that this schedule is weaker than it would have been had the amendments been accepted. I know that when we have debated other areas of local government legislation, the issue that comes up time and again is the frustration that our constituents feel when they are unable to get what sounds like a perfectly robust regulation enforced in practice—whether that is fly-tipping, antisocial parking or the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion around delivery drivers, scooters and so on, which I know exercises many of my constituents.

We remain concerned that this is a missed opportunity to give local authorities the most robust tools that would put beyond doubt what the test that had to be met was, and create the appropriate legal path for effective and rigorous enforcement locally. None the less, the schedule broadly represents a step forward. Therefore we will not oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

We have tabled amendment 291 to schedule 7. I know that this is an issue of great contention; the major concern is, as we have seen to a degree in London, mayors choosing to use their powers to levy fines, largely as a way of generating income. That sits somewhat ill with the regulations for parking, which are treated separately and are a local authority matter, where the proceeds from fines and enforcement activity is part of a ringfenced parking revenue account that may only be used for purposes connected to parking and the maintenance of the highways and the roads. There is therefore already a measure, regarding local authorities, that ensures that those who are paying the fines, fees and charges can see that the contribution that they are making through those is used to improve the safety and quality of the environment in which they drive, walk or cycle.

We remain concerned about the implications of this measure; some of those mayors and combined authorities may see this as a very handy revenue raiser, and start to ramp up enforcement in a way that is unhelpful. As we have seen in the case of Greater London, policies that might work well in highly congested central London are simply totally inappropriate on the fringes, and a replication of that scenario could be seen across other parts of the country—a one-size-fits-all approach that we would wish to see avoided.

That is the motivation behind amendment 291, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government will ensure that this is not simply a measure to use motorists as a cash cow.

[Vikki Slade]

Before I speak to amendments 246 and 348, I just want to reflect on the Minister’s comment about the ability of local authorities to enforce things such as yellow boxes, and the requirement to still obtain that consent from the Secretary of State. At Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we were granted the rights to do that, but the council was incredibly limited in the specific locations in which it was able to apply for that right. There were a number of places that felt their yellow box junctions were ignored.

In my own ward of Broadstone, one such yellow box at the entrance to a parking area regularly caused extensive delays. For local people, if we could change one thing for them, it would be, “Get that damn yellow box enforced!” However, it was not seen as strategic enough for the local authority to apply for the permissions. Enforcement is therefore reliant on police officers, who are not going to stand there and patrol those sorts of things. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister would be willing to devolve that power more truly, rather than retaining it at the centre.

Amendment 246 is a simple one that seeks to retain the decision making of those new civil enforcement powers to the elected persons, whether that be the elected mayor or an elected member of the authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are elements that are not allowed to be devolved to a commissioner. The amendment is about ensuring that these decisions are not devolved to a commissioner but are made by the elected person, as they will have that direct impact.

Amendment 348, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have also put our names to, seeks not to change the law on pavement parking— as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions—but to harmonise the rules so that the existing law on obstruction of the pavement, which requires the police to enforce, can also be enforced by civil authorities.

We regularly have situations in which civil enforcement officers—traffic wardens to you and I, Ms Vaz—have to walk past a car or van, often a delivery van, parked on a pavement, blocking guide dogs and people with mobility scooters from getting past. There is nothing they can do. I know that colleagues in this room will constantly be emailed by people asking, “What are you going to do about it?” All we can do is say, “Call the police.” We may be getting more police officers, but I personally do not want to see my police officers having to spend their time ticketing.

[Manuela Perteghella]

My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.

[Vikki Slade]

This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the Lib Dem spokeswoman, for her excellent speech. Will she acknowledge that—as much as she gets emails, every colleague across the country gets such emails—this is about making it easier for the end user, our constituents, to report stuff? Does she agree that Guide Dogs, which has been running an excellent campaign on behalf of the blind for many years, would be pleased to see the Minister accept amendment 348?

[Vikki Slade]

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Guide Dogs. I have Guide Dogs written down on my notes, as well as the RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, of which I am a champion. They have been campaigning for the full change, but amendment 348 would certainly be a step along the way. I also understand that it would implement the Transport Committee’s 2019 report recommendations. A lot of work has already been done on the issue.

The second element of amendment 348 contradicts something that the shadow Minister talked about in connection with Conservative amendment 291, which relates to parking fines. As a councillor and former leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, I was delighted that over the summer a Minister gave permission for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to have a trial of extended fines. That is not about councils trying to make money, but about councils trying to balance the books and local taxpayers not carrying the burden.

Let me give the Committee an example. A parking fine for someone who parks in the middle of a roundabout, on a grass verge or somewhere else dangerous—I am talking not about not paying in a car park, but about a dangerous piece of parking—is £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days. For someone who has travelled down to Bournemouth for a day at the beach, parking will cost between £25 and £30. It will cost a similar amount to park in Brighton, Bath or Oxford—in most of our thriving places.

Someone might as well pay £35 between four adults in a large vehicle that can bump its way up the kerb and park right next to the beach, where it is really convenient. The vehicle will need to be ticketed and, at some later stage, probably towed away if it is causing a danger to ambulances or bus routes. Even if it is towed away, the fine that can be levied is £150, and yet for the council to have that vehicle towed away can cost up to £800. The difference is paid by the local council taxpayer. In a typical summer in somewhere such as Bournemouth, something like 1,500 tickets are given out. Members can imagine how much of a shortfall there is.

Amendment 348 seeks to give the ability that already exists in London to other places, so that they can apply a different parking fine where deemed appropriate, potentially in limited circumstances. The system is not working at the moment. So many people think that it is perfectly okay to turn up to places and do that, although I do not think it happens quite so much in Cornwall. When I visited there, people behaved incredibly well, but people who visit places like Bournemouth behave incredibly badly, and to have that freedom would be useful.

[David Simmonds]

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady has said. In my constituency, people come from as far afield as Sheffield for a day out at the Ruislip lido, the only beach in Greater London. It is a huge cause of trouble for local residents, and I am glad that we have a local authority that is using its existing powers and is implementing measures such as towaway zones and higher parking fines to begin to address that. She probably feels, as I do, that we do not see mayors who do not know the local area, but the specific purpose of our amendment 291 is to ensure that this is not an opportunity to raise funds for them at the expense of the ability of the local authority to use its powers in a specific area to deal with the traffic management issues for which it is responsible.

[Vikki Slade]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying the purpose of his amendment 291, and I will be happy to withdraw my comment that it contradicts amendment 348, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Member is exactly right; the purpose of these parking fines is to ensure safe parking, and it is unreasonable that there should be shortfalls for the local council tax payer. Even if there was a surplus, that money should be rolled back into the experience and hopefully into encouraging people to use different forms of travel, such as park and ride, cycling, buses, and so on, all of which would seem to make the roads safer.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on what has been done, what could be done and how we might use these amendments to further those aims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

This seems the right point to bring this up. The Minister has talked about how the schedule creates powers to make directions in relation to roads that are not on the key route network. The Minister will have many decisions to make about regulations, and the complexity is coming out in our debates. Are discussions taking place in Cabinet about replacing the Office of Rail and Road with something broader to capture more of this area? The Office for Rail and Road only covers National Highways roads—the strategic road network. I wonder whether the key route network would benefit from being included in the work of the office, which could be named the Office for Integrated Transport and could also cover local roads, buses and active travel. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department for Transport about that?

[Vikki Slade]

In general I am supportive of the schedule, but I want to raise a slight concern. Proposed new section 2A of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 makes quite a few references to “local road traffic” and “key route networks”. That seems to be a clash of two different terms. It refers to local road traffic using local roads but also to the key network.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new section refers to producing a report to specify targets to reduce the levels of

“local road traffic using key route network roads”.

The impact of that will probably be that that local road traffic will use non-key networks, but there is nothing in the Bill that says where that traffic will go. As much as we would all like it to disappear, it generally does not, and that takes us back to the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about a report on all roads. That feels potentially cumbersome, and I worry about the costs. There seems to be a mismatch here; there is a requirement to produce something, but nothing is said about its possible implications and impact. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer now, but I am sure she can come back with it to help me understand what the impact of the reports might be. I would hate to see local authorities having to deal with the impact of something done in good faith at a strategic level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Local transport is a key responsibility of strategic authorities, which will continue to be the local transport authority for the area. These authorities will be responsible for local transport planning, the duty to secure the provision of local passenger transport services such as buses or trams, and other relevant powers for bus partnerships, bus franchising and travel concessions. This will allow them to make strategic decisions to support growth and placemaking across their areas through improved transport outcomes.

Currently, combined authorities and county authorities hold varying local transport powers under diverse governance arrangements. The Bill gives authorities certainty and clarity about these powers by standardising them. I commend schedule 9 to the Committee.

[Vikki Slade]

I rise to speak to new clause 11 on funding for transport authorities. There is a lot of merit in harmonising and simplifying the way that transport authorities work. Having borders between different systems can cause huge complications for people crossing them. Obviously, such borders will still exist, but hopefully they will be fewer and farther between.

The purpose of our new clause is to address the elephant in the room. The legislation adds a healthy set of new transport functions for combined authorities, set out across the various measures we have already heard about, and many of them are very positive, but the reality is that those transport authorities that are currently local authorities receive a lot of central Government funding, while the strategic and combined authorities sitting at the higher level do not. Their money is not coming from the magic money tree; it is coming from levies and precepts.

Additional responsibilities are great, but given the additional work involved in all this transport reporting that we have heard about, and the additional functions at a higher level, I am greatly concerned that we may be setting some of these organisations up to fail from the start. Through new clause 11, I am seeking assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to assess and review whether authorities have sufficient support and capacity to carry out these functions, and ensure that they are not too onerous given the source of their funding—levies on the authorities beneath them and precepts directly on the taxpayer.

This Bill is a move away from how we have been funding local authorities; yes, some local authorities are on zero revenue support grants, but many are still quite heavily reliant on central Government funding, and this is the first opportunity for me to say, out loud: are we sure this is a good idea? We are creating a whole framework of legislation and a whole set of local authorities, that have no real central funding. New clause 11 provides the first chance to ask that question and get assurance from the Minister about precisely where the money is coming from. If the money is coming directly from our residents through precepting, we should say that out loud, so that they understand what they have let themselves in for.

[Sam Carling]

I have a brief, technical question. I might be mistaken in my reading of the provision, but I seek clarification about the arrangements for local transport plans. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed to clause 6, which amended the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to introduce a standard of simple majority voting on combined authority boards. However, we included a grandfathering provision to allow some distinctive governance arrangements at existing authorities to continue.

Schedule 9 makes a similar amendment to the Transport Act 2000, specifically for the adoption of local transport plans, as we have heard, but this amendment does not have the grandfathering provision. Thinking of my own combined authority in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where local transport plans require a two-thirds majority, I wonder whether the Bill could create legal ambiguity that could lead to judicial reviews or legal challenges. According to clause 6, setting out the general arrangements of boards, the existing arrangements stand once this Bill comes into force, but according to schedule 9 they are overturned. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention there? Then we can find a way to remove that ambiguity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for her constructive and helpful amendment 252. In principle, the ability to integrate a land use framework and energy plan at the strategic level obviously makes sense. Regarding the amendment as drafted, the Government have consulted on a land use framework but have not yet provided a response, so the land use framework is not a tangible thing that strategic authorities can hinge their plans on.

Similarly, strategic spatial energy plans, which I have a lot of support for, and which I hope to see across the country, are at an embryonic stage. We do not know how high level they will be. The principle—that as strategic authorities are thinking about their strategic plans they should think about a whole host of things—holds, but we do not think that the amendment is appropriate because of the frameworks that it hinges on.

[Vikki Slade]

I wish to clarify the purpose of raising the issue of strategic spatial energy plans. There is a real risk that people confuse local area energy plans with net zero and climate change, but there is a possibility for us all to agree that it is far easier to put the role of the strategic authorities to think about the future of energy, from grid capacity to how we get things done, in those terms than to risk it becoming a net zero football. I would love to see, as the Bill goes through Parliament, a way for this measure to be inserted, because there are some real risks coming down the line, with potential leaderships that may try to drive things in a different direction.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.

The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.

I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The public rightly expect that mayoral strategic authorities will have access to the expertise they need, that they will work with businesses and other stakeholders, and that mayors will work full time to deliver for their communities. Mayoral strategic authorities will undertake critical new functions, including a stronger set of planning, transport and skills powers and, increasingly, police, fire and public health duties. The authorities will also represent their region in engagement with national bodies, and undertake joint working with partners. It is simply not realistic to expect a single mayor to do all that on their own.

The appointment of commissioners will be a local decision and no additional funding will be provided. I will gladly take Members’ questions now, but when we discuss schedule 3 in four groups’ time, I will expand on some of the checks and balances we are introducing to ensure that commissioners add real value to local decision making. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.

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

The name of the Bill promises devolution and community empowerment, yet a number of its clauses cause the Liberal Democrats some concern, and this is one. A key principle of democracy, local or national, is to have elected people—Ministers, Members of Parliament or councillors—delivering for the people who elect them. It makes little sense that a mayor of a combined county authority or combined authority, with dozens or scores of skilled constituent councillors and council leaders beneath them, might instead choose to appoint a commissioner to such an important role.

We heard in oral evidence from Councillor Bev Craig about the model used in Manchester, where the leaders of the constituent councils perform one of the portfolios. That strikes me as much more appropriate in a large strategic authority, where each of those individuals has skin in the game. There is no reason why a mayoral authority should not operate in the same way as large unitary authorities do. Mine represents more than 400,000 people and does not require a commissioner to look at planning, although it does have a head of planning—a paid member of staff. Policy decisions have in the English system traditionally been made by politicians, so I struggle to see why creating a new layer of authorities, further away from people, should take away the principle that such decisions should be made by elected people.

Some have suggested that there are not enough constituent council leaders in some areas—perhaps areas that have only three or four council leaders. There are some incredible deputy leaders and portfolio holders. There may be a case for drawing from a broader pool, but suggesting that those people are not sufficiently qualified in understanding their area or area of expertise could damage the respect that council leaders have in their area, as well as the connection between a constituent council and the strategic authority that sits above it. If we want constituent councils to drive better strategic decisions and better strategic outcomes for all residents, it would be much more sensible to give those individuals a real role in the authority. Given the way that additional responsibility allowances are scheduled, that can be a lot cheaper, because the Bill does not provide for people to have the double allowances that we already have in other parts of the system.

If we bring in external individuals as commissioners, there will be few checks and balances; they are not democratically accountable. The mayor may well be able to remove them, as is detailed in the Bill, but the public cannot remove them. Fundamentally, the people who are making policy decisions should be able to be removed by the public. They should also be held to the standards regime, as well as the other elements of conflicts of interest and financial declarations that councillors must follow.

I think that is all I want to say, but I feel really strongly that a model is there, such as the one in Manchester. We have heard about London evolving over time, but we have some great models running in the country. To me, it seems a sensible way forward to look at what they are doing in Greater Manchester, which is already incredibly successful.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

As the hon. Lady refers to Greater Manchester, I am minded of the role that Chris Boardman has played in Greater Manchester in rolling out active travel. He is unelected, and I think it would be a shame if we could not take advantage of such a person’s expertise. Does she accept that is a risk with what she proposes?

[Vikki Slade]

There is a role for experts, but the role of the commissioners, as they are seen through this lens or this organisation, is far better suited to people who are elected. Councils around the country, including Manchester, can appoint individuals to do specific roles for a specific period of time, but the role of commissioner lies in those strategic decision-making pieces that are integral to their shape, and they ensure that an individual cannot independently run a fiefdom. I think it is really important that there are local people who are accountable. There is nothing to stop an organisation from appointing an individual expert, as they do all over the country, but they do not need to be called “commissioners”.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

With your permission, Sir John, I will make some references to schedule 3 as well as clause 9, just to do it all in the same place. I will start by responding to some of the hon. Lady’s points. She raises some valid concerns. I will just give the perspective of someone who lives in quite a fractious combined authority area. I think my combined authority board currently has two Conservatives, two Lib Dems and two Labour—that is not enough people, so it must be 3:3:2, but I cannot remember which way around.

We also have the Manchester system at the moment, whereby different people hold different portfolios, which has led to a lot of politicisation. We have a Conservative mayor now, and we previously had a Labour mayor, but under both there was a lot of game-playing going on and a lot of difficulty, so I think it would be helpful for the mayor to be able to appoint commissioners just to get on with delivering their strategy. They are directly elected, and although I disagree with my mayor on a lot of things, I accept his mandate. It may well be helpful for mayors across the country to be able to deliver the strategy that they have stood on.

My concern relates to the relative sizes of combined authorities in a uniform approach to commissioners, and whether we can look at how to deal with that. To give an example, Greater Manchester has 3 million residents; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has around 1 million. Similarly, the Greater Manchester combined authority has 3,500 staff—or 4,600 if you include Transport for Greater Manchester—while Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority has 139 employees, according to a freedom of information request from March 2024. The difference in scale is significant, and obviously the amount of work for commissioners to oversee is therefore significant.

I do not want to put the Minister on the spot now, but could she write to me at some point to give context on whether the Government have considered modifying the number of commissioners that a combined authority mayor can appoint with respect to that variance in size, or perhaps the allowance payable to those commissioners, so they would be more part time in smaller authorities? I note that amendment 293, which we will discuss later, relates to allowances, and I can imagine that the Government want to allow flexibility so that local areas can do what is best for them, which makes perfect sense.

Within my area, if commissioners were paid at director level, that could cost well over £1 million. Senior officers can earn in excess of £100,000, which is a significant sum, and it is more than mayors themselves or many Government Ministers earn. That may well be appropriate in London, where it works and seems to be doing a great job, but London is a lot bigger than some other authorities. I thank the Committee for listening to those thoughts, and if the Minister could give some clarity on how we can deal with some of those issues, I would be really grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I had not previously heard the Conservatives’ argument on this issue, and I have to say that I disagree. The Minister said that the original intention of the policy was to allow for a wide range of precepting, and if there is one thing that directly elected mayors are really accountable for, it is the level of precept that they set.

I am in favour of creativity in conversations with the electorate about what initiatives, appropriate to the local area, might be funded by precept on a short-term basis or just in the local area. The way that the provision is set up allows mayors to be properly accountable for that. I worry less about it resulting in huge tax rises without consent, because consent is built in at election time.

I appreciate the concerns about austerity continuing in councils that are underneath and part of the combined authority if mayors are taking up available taxpaying powers. In every debate in this Committee, I would love to bring up the fact that all this reorganisation is happening in the absence of an end to austerity. The Government need to provide more funding to local councils so that this is not all being taken in council tax, which is a very unfair tax.

[Vikki Slade]

I have no principled objection to the mayor setting a precept. I found it confusing when I heard Mayor Houchen explain how he had a zero precept. How does anything get done? Where does the money come from? [Interruption.] I am sure he has a salary, and I am sure he has an extensive office that is paid for by someone. I accept that the principle of a precept is, in some respects, self-limiting, but what bothers me is that the combined authority mayors have no referendum cap, unlike upper-tier, lower-tier, police and crime or fire authorities.

It is fire authorities I particularly want to speak to, because although some Government amendments have been tabled on the role of the mayor in terms of fire and rescue, there is almost silence in the Bill about the role of the fire and rescue service, while embracing it completely and almost making the whole service disappear. I am really concerned that fire authorities are already desperately under-resourced. Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service gets £1.76 a week per household. It has desperately been trying to get a 20p per week increase, but has been told, “No, you can’t have that.” There is nothing in the Bill that protects and ringfences any money for fire services, whereas there is more talk about police services. I am looking for some reassurance and commitment about how fire services funding will be properly resourced and ringfenced to make sure that no area suffers as when we had those horrendous wildfires, where fire services had to beg, borrow and steal equipment.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are all hugely sympathetic to the funding of fire and rescue—as we see climate change, the imperative of fire and rescue services is key—but it is outside the scope of the Bill. We believe that we have the balance right between allowing precepting powers for mayors and allowing democratic accountability by which the electorate can hold any mayor and politician to account.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Single foundation strategic authorities

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

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.

(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—

(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 87, leave out lines 1 to 29.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.

Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 95, leave out paragraph 33 and 34.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.

[Vikki Slade]

Amendments 4, 28 and 29 seek to ensure that this is a genuinely community-led devolution—I am sure that we will repeat that many times throughout the morning. Fundamentally, the Bill seeks to move decision making closer to home, which we welcome. However, closer to home needs to start at home, and we want it to be councils that take the initiative to establish a single foundation authority, not the Secretary of State. We also believe that the public should play a role, and therefore this process should involve consultation, which we believe these amendments will provide.

This is a really important issue for us; we think it is fundamental to the whole concept of devolution. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will speak to these amendments in more detail, and we will push amendment 4 to a vote.

[David Simmonds]

We know there will be quite a degree of debate on this in due course. We sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, and we all share the concern that local people should be the ones who initiate change in the structures that govern their local areas, not the Secretary of State or the man in Whitehall who knows best. Therefore we have sympathy with the objective, and we shall return to that debate later on with some of the amendments around the structures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I spoke to the leaders of Hampshire and the Solent just last week, and they were unanimously enthusiastic about what was being proposed, because they could see the opportunity. I am pleased that it is being voted on, and ultimately it is for places to come forward. What we have said to them is, “If you go through this journey, there are powers that you can draw down that will allow you to drive change in your areas.” The strategic authorities, combined authorities and constituent authorities can see the economic prospect. They see what is happening in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands, and they want that for their residents. That is absolutely right, and what we are doing is enabling and supporting that.

Let me talk about the backstop power provided here. We do not expect to use it, which is why it does not come into force at Royal Assent; it is there if we need to draw on it. The only reason it is there—because we think the demand and the momentum created by devolution will do the job for us—is in the instance where there are blockages. That means when constituent authorities that want to move forward are being resisted by a particular authority, we give ourselves the ability to intervene. The reason we are doing that is because we do not want any residents to be left out. We do not want areas to be devolution deserts, not being able to benefit from the economic opportunities and prospects provided.

[Vikki Slade]

The reality is that the only reason they are queuing at the Minister’s door to access devolution is that they are being denied access to funding if they do not. Let me give the example of Wessex: Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire have all been unitarised over the past 10 years. They should have been in the ideal position, but they were overlooked for the first wave of devolution. They were apparently not ready, and I accept that fact, but they have missed out this financial year on more than £300 million—£159.29 for every single household in that area—compared with other areas. They have no real choice but to devolve to a single authority, because why would their residents think it is acceptable for them to miss out on £300 million? So it is not fair, or it is disingenuous, to suggest that this is not compulsion. The other point I want to make—

--- Later in debate ---

Division 1

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 3

---

Liberal Democrat: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Vikki Slade]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 267, in schedule 1, page 79, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 268, in schedule 1, page 80, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 269, in schedule 1, page 80, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 270, in schedule 1, page 80, line 21, leave out paragraph 7.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 271, in schedule 1, page 82, line 11, leave out paragraph 14.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.

Amendment 272, in schedule 1, page 85, line 31, leave out paragraph 17

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 85, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.

Amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 86, line 20, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 86, line 27, at end insert—

“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 273, in schedule 1, page 87, line 30, leave out paragraph 18.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 274, in schedule 1, page 92, line 12, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 275 to 280, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 275, in schedule 1, page 92, line 35, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

Amendment 276, in schedule 1, page 93, line 40, leave out paragraph 29.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

Amendment 277, in schedule 1, page 94, line 1, leave out paragraph 30.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

Amendment 278, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, leave out paragraph 34.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

Amendment 279, in schedule 1, page 99, line 5, leave out paragraph 37.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

Amendment 280, in schedule 1, page 101, line 1, leave out paragraph 38.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.

New clause 23—Consent for local government restructuring—

(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all the constituent councils.

(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.”

[Vikki Slade]

We rehearsed the conversation about the level of consultation, but this is really about the role of town and parish councils. We have seen, since the devolution announcements were made, areas around the country rush to form town and parish councils where they do not already exist, and to protect services through town and parish councils where they already do.

However, we have heard that town and parish councillors have been completely ignored throughout the entire process. There has been no formal consultation with them and they have barely been mentioned. In fact, in the whole of the Bill, the title “parish councillor” is mentioned just four times, and in relation only to community assets. They are the true local councils; they are the people who know what is going on in their communities. The suggestion that there is no formal role for them to play in something as important as the creation of a huge council that will move things further away from them is hugely problematic.

We had local reorganisation in the Dorset area back in 2019. I have visited a number of the parish councils, and they have said to me that, since they lost their district council, the unitary council that they now have to work with is distant; things do not get done. In some of the areas being proposed, the new unitary authorities might be 50 or 60 miles away—they are going to be dealing with half a million people. Their main role is going to be in those really statutory, strategic functions. Yet our town and parish councils will be the ones that have to pick up the pieces, so their voices have to be heard. Of course, they will not be the ones making the decision—we know that—but they are simply invisible. We feel strongly that they should be part of that conversation; they should be consultees in this. Things should not be able to happen without their voices being heard.

[Paul Holmes]

I have great sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. Would she agree that town and parish councils are already being asked to take on more services? We are seeing potential districts being abolished, handing down—or essentially getting rid of—assets to town and parish councils. Meanwhile, the town and parish councils are not being consulted on the wider reorganisation going forward. I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Lady’s view that parish and town councils need to be consulted. Could she elaborate on why she thinks the Government are so reluctant to do so?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am not in the mind of the Government; I cannot understand why they would not want to embrace the incredible hard work of these volunteers in our communities who are already doing so much. But we are seeing, in every community, services handed down or at risk of closure, which are then only saved by the incredible work of the parish councils. It just strikes me as odd that we would not embrace the role of those parish councils.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I would just point out—I will say this multiple times in this Bill Committee—that, as someone in an area that has become unitary, no one is ever saying, “We want more district, borough and county councils, rather than fewer.” We have to be careful not to suggest that there will be less engagement with the council because we are going to unitaries.

Could the hon. Lady set out what legal change to parish councils she is concerned about? What powers are they losing? I cannot see any change in a parish councils’ powers under the Bill.

[Vikki Slade]

No power is being lost, because parish councils have few powers in the first place. What we are suggesting—what we feel should be at the heart of devolution—is about consent: actually consulting those local organisations that have a role. They are tax-raising and grant-giving organisations. They are, in reality, taking on a lot of those services yet their voice is silent. We are not asking for their powers to be changed; we are asking for their voices to be heard. That is all that the amendment requires.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I was a town councillor for a good decade and a half before I became an MP. We went through unitarisation in Cheshire in 2008, so I recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying about town and parish councils being asked to take on more services—I saw it under the last Conservative Government as funding was taken away from Cheshire West and Chester council.

The reason why I am mystified is that my experience of town and parish councils is that they are not shy about expressing themselves. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is looking to achieve with the amendment, because town and parish councils are perfectly free to express their view in the consultations that already happen when these authorities are set up. Is she suggesting that town and parish councils should have a veto? From the way her amendment is worded, that seems like an entirely different proposition. Could she clarify that?

[Vikki Slade]

Nobody is suggesting a veto; we are suggesting a voice. There is a big difference. We have already heard that district councils felt that they were pushed around by the county councils, and the experiences of town and parish councils are simply an acceleration of that; when these proposals were being put forward by the Minister earlier this year, there was absolutely no role for those councils. We are simply saying that there are layers of local accountability that we believe should be on the list of people who are consulted.

This is a simple amendment that says, “You are already consulting other organisations in the chain of command. You should also include the town parish councils in that chain.” That is why we believe that amendment 33 is critical, as it

“would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority”,

and why we will push it to a vote.

[David Simmonds]

I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name. There is a degree of overlap between the points made so far and the subject matter of my amendments: all of them revolve around the issue of localism and consent. As has been clearly expressed, I have a degree of sympathy for the points that have just been made, particularly those about the role of parish and district councils in agreeing to and steering this devolution process.

When we had our witness session just a few weeks ago, we heard from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network and from Justin Griggs, the head of policy and communications at the National Association of Local Councils, which represents the parish councils and parish meetings of England. Both of them emphasised in their evidence the need for and the importance of that local voice. I reflect on legislation passed recently—particularly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthened the powers that our communities sought for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments. One of the things we missed was the opportunity to enable parish councils and parish meetings to use those powers. That is a really concrete example of where our constituents would have benefited.

We know there are both sins of omission and sins of commission. I suspect it is a sin of omission that the Government have failed to use the opportunity of this legislation to complete the devolution work that they talk about, and to ask, “What role will those elected bodies at the town and parish level be able to play in the context of this new devolved world?” It speaks to something that I know the Opposition have real concern about: a form of institutionalised disrespect for local leaders that is built into this process. There is wholesale abolition of the local voice at scale, and proposals that the Secretary of State will direct, rather than consent.

Sir John, you will perhaps call to mind Lord Porter, formerly Gary Porter of South Holland, as one of those many local leaders whose approach and insight really shaped the nature of that local community. Reflecting on my time in local government, I had the opportunity to serve with people with very senior public and private sector leadership experience who steered the strategy of the local authority to deliver for local residents. To be told that the Government’s view is that they are to be mere community convenors, and they are not to have a role in that strategic leadership, is frankly insulting to the work that so many of our local leaders do.

The value of that was spelled out very clearly in our evidence session. I was particularly struck by Councillor Bev Craig, the Labour group lead and LGA vice-chair at the Local Government Association, who talked about how the Greater Manchester model worked because of that local leadership and the power of those individuals to come to the table and drive forward devolution, efficiency and service quality.

The amendments broadly fall into two categories that I have made today. The bulk of them are entirely about removing the ability of the Secretary of State to dictate to local areas—as was threatened by the Government when this devolution process started—what that devolution arrangement would look like, without the consent of those local areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has spelled out, of the many proposals that have come forward, we have not seen a single one embracing what the Government have set out, but a number of rival proposals for that reorganisation.

It is very clear that there is not any significant degree of local consent. There is a threat, and there is some money on the table to bail local authorities out, but they can have it only if they do what the Government want. If local authorities do not do it now, the Government will take powers to make them do it to their own agenda later on. That is the very opposite of localism. When we put the Localism Act 2011 through Parliament, it was broadly supported by all local leaders and Members of Parliament, and that was because we recognised the value it added at all levels. This process, however—the centralising element of the Bill—says that it will be a man or woman in Whitehall who decides: they will tell us what is in the interest of our community.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Vikki Slade]

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—

“(9A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.

Amendment 361, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”

This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.

[Vikki Slade]

Our councils are struggling to make ends meet. With so many on the edge of a precipice, I can see why they would be queuing up to create a strategic authority, which come with millions of pounds. There is, however, huge concern in councils that the cost to set up and run these organisations is oblique, and that there is a risk that the cost of running them will be passed to local people through additional precepting. I can tell the Committee from experience that the tens of millions of pounds that it is said will be saved by creating strategic authorities generally are not saved, and that if they are saved, they are replaced with other costs and take 10 years to materialise. Many councils do not have 10 years before they will go bust.

I am acutely aware that some funding was put aside for those organisations in the devolution priority phase, but when I asked the previous Minister what was happening with funding for future phases, I was met by stony silence. He explained to me that in order to progress there would need to be money in the settlement, but at the same time he talked about having already made a three-year settlement. That suggested to me that those organisations that are not already funded perhaps will not be funded within a three-year period, because there is no money. Given that those organisations are already telling us that they are £300 million short this year because they are not in the programme, but the Minister has no money set aside for next year to continue the programme, where is the money coming from?

Our amendments 38, 39 and 361 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that authorities receive adequate funding at least to facilitate their establishment, if not their continuation. It is crucial that local leaders—and local people, when they vote to make this progress—do not tie themselves down to additional costs that they cannot afford. That is why we feel it is important to press amendment 39 to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will elaborate further.

[David Simmonds]

I had the privilege of spending 24 years in local government, divided equally across the previous Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. I do not think that local government felt at any point in those 24 years that it was well funded and there was plenty of money to go around. In every single one of those years, irrespective of who was in government, our starting point when setting council tax was, “How are we going to meet a very substantial savings target?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

Will funding be made available for areas that are not yet in a programme on the same footing as the areas that are already in one? It would be completely inappropriate if that funding was not committed to. I want to get that on record.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have established a principle that there should be mayoral capacity funding. We have established a principle that for places that are going through the transition, to ensure that any mayor that is created is able to hit the ground running, capacity building needs to be a core part of that. That applies to the places that are going through the devolution priority programme at the moment, but the same principle invariably will apply across the piece.

[The Chair]

Vikki Slade, do you wish to divide the Committee on amendments 38 and 39?

[Vikki Slade]

We were seeking to divide only on amendment 39, but given that we have had that assurance, I am happy not to do so. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Combined authorities and CCAs: establishment, expansion and functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 4 introduces schedule 1, which will streamline and simplify existing processes for establishing new combined authorities and combined county authorities, and for changing the arrangements of existing authorities. The Government have been clear that their goal is to achieve universal coverage of strategic authorities. We are therefore confident that clear and tangible benefits of devolution will be experienced across the country. We have also been clear that we want to create mechanisms that will ensure that the process is streamlined—that it is fast, and effective and efficient locally—and allows representation, but fundamentally allow us to move through the process that we see appetite and demand for across the country.

The powers introduced by the clause will be used as a backstop. They will be deployed only where we have devolution deserts and we want to work with areas to remove blockages, to the benefit of residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I used to live on the Isle of Wight. I got married there and my parents met there, so I have a fond connection to it. Does the hon. Member agree that if “Isle of Wight” is not included within the authority name of “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight”, it might disappear from all the other organisations in which it features, such as fire authorities or health authorities? Suddenly, the Isle of Wight’s unique identity would be completely subsumed into an amorphous Hampshire.

[Paul Holmes]

As the hon. Lady knows from when we were on the BBC’s “Politics South” programme some weeks ago, I rarely agree with Liberal Democrats, but I suspect that she and I agree on this point. I know that she stands for her area and, as a former council leader, for the wider area, and that she knows a lot about the Isle of Wight. I did not know that she got married there, but I am sure it was a lovely wedding, because the Isle of Wight is a beautiful place steeped in history. She is absolutely right that while Hampshire and the Isle of Wight have been together geographically, they have also been together in the way organisations have worked, over hundreds of years. I see the Solent as the water motorway connecting the mainland to the Isle of Wight. We could not interact without having it there. “Hampshire and the Solent” is the wrong name for the proposed mayoralty, because it leaves out the distinct identity of a proud people on the Isle of Wight.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

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

I am a member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I declare that I used to be a parish councillor and, until March, a district councillor for Stratford-on-Avon.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My husband is a sitting councillor on Rochdale borough council.

[Vikki Slade]

Apologies for having a second go, but my husband is also a sitting councillor and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

In case we do not get to it this afternoon, Donna Jones, one of the witnesses, is a personal friend of mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis]

Q You mentioned how important town and parish councils are, and suggested that you would ideally like to see more parish councils. My question is on the neighbourhood governance proposals in the Bill. What do you make of them? What should they learn from the current structures of the town and parish councils? Based on your earlier comment, do you think that we should not have them, but should be looking at extending parish and town councils?

Justin Griggs: One of the ambitions that the Government set out in the White Paper and the Bill is to simplify local government structures and make them much more consistent. In 92% of England, if you leave your house, the first place where decisions are taken for you is in the stewardship of your park and open spaces, and in the supporting local organisations. You would not have that in many parts of England under local government reorganisation.

Those structures should be set up, and it is very much in keeping with other phases of reorganisation. Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are fully parished. It would very much go with the grain and good practice of what has happened previously. It is really helpful—credit to Sam and many of his members—that many district councils are conducting community governance reviews to take a look at neighbourhood and community governance in their areas, where there is interest and appetite to set up new councils, so that they have a structure and a voice for taking action.

On the ingredients of how neighbourhoods can work, it is really helpful that the Government have set out that they see neighbourhood governance and models such as neighbourhood area committees as not undermining parish and town councils, but recognising their role and how they should be hardwired into representation on those committees. That goes to the heart of how we need to get all tiers of local government—strategic authorities, unitary authorities and parish councils—working collectively to benefit their residents.

Sam Chapman-Allen: It is important that the Secretary of State and Whitehall do not dictate what those local government and neighbourhood arrangements look like. It is for local places, local residents and local councillors—whether town, parish, district, unitary or county councillors—to decide what those types of neighbourhood models look like, bringing everyone together from the voluntary sector to the public sector, and the private sector if required, to deal with the challenges in that place-based locality.

[Vikki Slade]

Q In more urban areas, particularly those that have districts and do not have town or parish councils—I represent an area that did not have a neighbourhood review and does not have them—there is real potential for losing the civic and cultural identity of a place. Can you talk to what you think needs to change in who is the local face for a town or community?

Sam Chapman-Allen: I come back to my previous response: it is for local places to decide. Everywhere will look different. Casting ourselves back to where we are in Norfolk, we have the fantastic cathedral city of Norwich and the two massive coastal ports of Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn. They are working out whether they need to establish a town or parish council, or whether the new unitary council can pick up that type of role—what is appropriate for them.

That civic place base is really important, with all the history and regalia that goes with it, but the most important bit is how those residents identify and interact with their local councillors and their local town hall. It is not for me, as chair of the District Councils Network, to tell them; I do not believe it is for Whitehall Departments either. It is for those local places to work out. That is what makes this Bill so special. It is for everybody in local communities to derive that. That is why it is important that local communities get to decide the structures, the size and scale, and the neighbourhood arrangements.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Q This is a question for Councillor Chapman-Allen about the balance of powers between councils and strategic authorities in the licensing space. A number of our district and unitary councils, including Peterborough and Huntingdonshire, in the area I represent are grappling with problems of taxi licensing, where taxis are potentially registering in nearby authorities with laxer regimes to avoid standards—

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Q A quick question to Councillor Hicks. In your role as chair of the County Council Network, have you had any discussions with or representations from Konsel Kernow, Cornwall Council? If you have, what is the nature of those discussions in relation to mayoral combined authorities?

Matthew Hicks: I have only been in post a week, so I cannot give you an answer as to whether those discussions have taken place in the past. Certainly I know we have looked at the Cornwall business case and Cornwall has always been well represented and a strong voice at the CCN, putting its case very strongly, and I am sure that will continue in the future. However, I cannot answer that question today.

[Vikki Slade]

Q This is a big question, but I know you need to give a quick answer. I think everyone is agreed, or most of us are agreed, that local government needs to reform urgently. Is this it? What is not in the Bill that should have been if we are going to do this properly? There is still an opportunity for us to do that.

Bev Craig: As we touched on earlier, sometimes a conflation of resource and organisation. It is important to draw the distinction that we are not here today to put forward the LGA’s position around the resourcing component, but it is important that we still see that outside the Bill. From an LGA perspective, we would be looking for more clarity on competencies as people move into strategic authorities, and really important is thought around what capacity and support is given to councils as they move through their transition. There are other things that we will continue to push for—for example, thinking about the role of civic and cultural competencies in strategic authorities and how they play into place. Fundamentally, in the Bill we want recognition that local authorities play a key role in delivering all of this, and without collaboration there will not be success.

Kevin Bentley: If I can leave you with one word, it is implementation. Although it does not feel like it, drawing lines on a map and putting the evidence forward is the easy part. Doing it is something very different. We learn from the experience of others and we look at others. This round of devolution is very different from what has happened before. We are creating new large authorities and devolving and disaggregating services upward to those authorities, so we must resource implementation properly. I would like to see a much firmer line on resourcing—not telling us how to do it, because I think we know locally how to do it, but making sure there is resourcing for us to do it. We have to remember that while we are doing that, with shadow elections for us in 2027, we still have to deliver the day job. That is about people and certainly in upper tier authorities, it is about some vulnerable people.

My only concern throughout all of this, and I am and always have been a great devolutionist, is that we do something or miss something and somebody falls through a crack and is left behind. None of us must allow that to happen. I know we will not and we will work very hard, but we need the proper resourcing to make that happen. This is fundamental change and is very unlikely to happen again for the next 50, 60 or even more years in the future. We have to get it right. Our successors will not thank us if we do not.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Catriona Riddell and Ion Fletcher gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Nick Plumb, policy director at Power to Change, and Robbie Whittaker, a member of the Football Supporters’ Association national council. This panel, and our morning sitting, will finish no later than 11.44 am.

[Vikki Slade]

Q Welcome to the Committee. Communities will be able to nominate assets of community value that are of economic value. Nick, that is particularly relevant for the community businesses that you support. Can you say a little about how communities could use the new power, and whether there are resources that need to come with that power?

Nick Plumb: At Power to Change, we think that the Bill’s provisions on community right to buy are a positive step forward. Power to Change has been calling for this for several years. To illustrate why the right is so needed, the key piece of data on the current regime on assets of community value and the community right to bid is that of every 1,000 assets that are listed as assets of community value, only 15 end up in community hands. The expansion of the definition of assets of community value to include economic as well as social benefit is a positive step, as is the introduction of a community right to buy as opposed to a community right to bid.

Some of the questions lie in the implementation. We think that there are potential challenges with this new right if you are asking councils to maintain a broader list of assets of community value and trying to get the new right to live up to the expectations that communities are rightly bringing forward. One thing that Power to Change has been calling for since the end of the community ownership fund is continued community ownership funding to support groups, particularly at the early stage at which groups might have a great idea for an asset but are not quite sure how to take it forward. A combination of revenue and capital funding is really important.

One of the lessons of the community ownership fund is that communities have a real ability to raise funds themselves. One of the great stories of the fund was that Government money leveraged lots of other investment, whether that was through private loans or by community share raising, where groups go out to the community to raise money from local members. Any future funding model for community ownership to sit alongside the community right to buy could be quite mixed. It could involve grant, loan and, importantly, revenue funding support and training. I know that there is mention of that in the Bill, and I am pleased to see that.

There is one final point to add, on the economic contribution of community-owned assets. Power to Change recently did some work with the 11,000 community businesses across England and found that they contribute roughly £1.5 billion in direct gross value added to the economy, which is equivalent to the solar sector, so they are important economic actors. Importantly, the economic contribution of community-owned assets sticks locally: we found that roughly 56p in every £1 circulates in the local economy, due to local supply chains, compared with roughly 40p for large private businesses. With the agenda around local growth, I see a successfully implemented community right to buy as a key driver of local growth outcomes.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q Thank you for setting out how we are building on the community right to bid and the additional powers that are baked in to the legislation that will generally give communities the power to take over assets. One of the things that we have done a huge amount of work on over the past decade and a bit is building the capacity of our community organisations to be in the position to do this. I am interested in your take on the relationship with the neighbourhood governance powers in the Bill and the extent to which you think that this is an opportunity to build the capacity of some of our community organisations both to take over ownership but, critically, to have voice and power to change their places.

Nick Plumb: I want to make a couple of points. It was a really interesting conversation this morning on neighbourhood governance from colleagues from parish councils and local government. Power to Change is a member of the We’re Right Here campaign, which has been campaigning for community power legislation such as some of the measures in this Bill. We are keen that the neighbourhood governance measures that are introduced through the Bill allow for local variation and for a whole range of different organisations that exist at a neighbourhood level to be a part of that neighbourhood governance arrangement. We think that one of the risks with the area committee model is that it is a prescriptive top-down model that says, “This is the way to do things,” rather than saying, “What exists already in a neighbourhood, and how do we build on that?”

One of the ideas that Power to Change has been working on and testing in place is a community covenant. We have been testing that so far in Market Drayton in Shropshire through a partnership of 20 local organisations—everyone from the local authority to community organisations to representatives from town and parish councils—on the idea of a family and neighbourhood hub. So far, the results from that work are really positive. There was some initial scepticism about a new way of working, but one of the council officers has fed back that the new approach is a real gift that has helped them to move much further and faster with their communities than they would have done if they were just doing things from the council down.

One of the calls from us through this legislation is to try not to be too prescriptive with neighbourhood governance but lean into a model that puts people on an equal footing and gives people an equal seat at the table. I will not spend too long on this, but my other point is that it is great that we have a piece of legislation with “community empowerment” in its title, and I think that community right to buy and neighbourhood governance, if done right, go some way. Power to Change and the We’re Right Here campaign would like to see community right to buy as one of several community rights. We have been calling for a community right to shape public services, which would entail involving the people who receive services from the state in the design, delivery and development of public services. That would build on provisions in the Localism Act, such as the right to challenge, and it would make that a much more expansive right.

We would also like to see a community right to control investment, which would involve certain bits of investment from central Government sitting at that neighbourhood level. Both of those rights really lean into some of the Government’s existing agenda. The plan for neighbourhoods is a real example of that. There are some questions still to be answered on what that looks like, but it could involve trusting neighbourhoods to take hold of money and think, “How do we improve our lot together?”

The right to shape public services is very in line with some of the test, learn and grow work that is happening in the Cabinet Office. We would see the community empowerment element of the Bill really living up to its name if it was the beginning of a set of community rights rather than the community right to buy tick and done.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I thought you might say that—thank you.

Donna Jones: I have represented my two counties, with 2.2 million people, for four and a bit years now. It is tough, because I have two large geographical counties; it would take me three and a half hours to travel from north to south of my patch, and I know colleagues have the same issue. If you are doing your job well and you are delivering, the press—the media, radio and TV—is your best friend. The power of being able to work with the press to get out the good news of what you are doing is very impactful. For mayors who have police under them, if the police are delivering and helping, that is another way of getting messaging out there.

On parish and town councils, I think that in my area, the rub will come with local government reorganisation, which thankfully is a year or two behind devolution—or planned to be one year behind it. I am trying to very clearly separate the two: this is about spending and more power to our elbow in Hampshire and the Solent, and that is about how we save money through local government reorganisation.

If I was still a unitary authority leader, facing the prospect of moving from 15 councils in my area to perhaps four or five, I would be consulting on parish and town councils, if we did not have them in the area that I represented. When you have four very large unitary authorities across a county such as Hampshire, which has 1.8 million people, the nucleus of your council becomes much further away from the village or town that you live in. Therefore, from a democratic perspective, getting things at that lower level to give real buy-in will be key.

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

Q I am really concerned about the movement of powers from police and crime commissioners to mayors, but more so about the moving of the fire and rescue services, which are given almost a passing mention in the Bill. I am fascinated to hear how you see this, as mayors who are already in place. Strategic authorities will cover multiple counties, multiple fire authorities and multiple police authorities, and all that will be vested in a single person. That feels like a real democratic deficit.

How do you understand those different areas? In my area, Wessex, there will be four counties, with two different police authorities and two different fire authorities, and the authority itself. It will all have to line up eventually. I am really concerned about how you can improve services for your residents, because that is what this is all about. It feels very remote when services such as police and fire might be very different in the New Forest compared with the centre of Portsmouth, the North York Moors or one of the cities.

Tracy Brabin: If I could just make the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners, we have had so many amazing opportunities because of those two responsibilities—the teaming and ladling of responsibilities and moneys, and being able to have a strategic police and crime plan. Crime does not just come from bad people; it comes from poor housing, a lack of skills and opportunity, and a lack of transport to get to jobs and training. The ability to bring together those responsibilities in a Venn diagram gives us really great outcomes.

One example is using money from the apprenticeship levy share scheme that would have gone back to Whitehall. We have kept some of that money in the region, including £1 million from Morrisons, to train up 15 PCSOs to go on my bus network and in bus stations, so that we can target my safety of women and girls plan. That opportunity is a gift. I know that the Mayor of South Yorkshire called an early election in order to get those powers, because he saw the opportunity. I also know that Kim McGuinness, who has been a PCC and is now a mayor, is desperate for PCC responsibilities, because she knows the benefit.

To your point, the challenge is coterminosity. I know that the previous Home Secretary was very focused on trying to identify how to get not just savings, but efficiencies, in coterminosity. Bringing fire into that makes a fair bit of sense. In West Yorkshire, we already have a really decent relationship between fire and police, so I am not sure whether having additional powers would make a substantive difference, but I will say to the Committee that mayors need to be in local resilience forums. Following the horrendous attack in Southport, the public, the Government and the press went to the mayor, but the mayor is not privy to all the information in the first instance. The resilience piece is really important, and I know the Bill is going to address that.

[The Chair]

Donna Jones, we have five minutes left for this panel.

Donna Jones: I will be very brief. While I was effectively advocating for my own job to go, I support what Tracy is saying, because it is about representing the public as best we can and spending taxpayers’ money wisely.

I will give you an example of why there is support for police and crime powers, as well as fire, going into a mayor’s office. One of the biggest frustrations that I have had as a police and crime commissioner has been the lack of ability to convene. I can convene with good will, so I can ask people and bring them together, but I get all different levels from different councils. Sometimes I get the director of children’s services or the director of adult social care coming to my strategic violence reduction meetings; sometimes I get the community safety manager.

Community safety partnerships are hit and miss in a lot of councils—you will know that from your patch. Some district councils see the benefit in community safety, and they still have their community wardens; in others, the emergency planning manager is doubling up as the CSP manager. PCCs have historically paid money towards the CSP manager and the functions that they are delivering, knowing that really, they are just propping up the council’s emergency planning management team, and there is not really a CSP at all. It comes together when, sadly, a baby has died or there is a need to convene a domestic homicide review. That still sits at the district council level, which is an oddity to me.

A whole load of things are aggravating factors. On the serious violence duty, for example, my requirement is to make sure that everyone who has a duty under that is fulfilling it, but I do not have a direct duty myself. I have to make sure that all the councils are doing what they need to do. Each year, I am given a pot of money from the Home Office to do the strategic needs assessment, and then I co-ordinate that and pass it back to the Home Office, on behalf of prisons, probation, the police and all my councils. Some councils turn up and play a part in that; some do not.

Giving the mayor the public safety commissioner role, so that what the councils are currently doing can be pulled through the mayor, and so that the mayor has the right and ability to convene and make sure that people are working and fulfilling their duty to collaborate, will be a game changer. It will make communities safer. However, police moneys are ringfenced, while fire money is not—that is a matter for you.

In relation to local resilience forums, I completely agree. Baroness Jane Scott, who was Minister in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, did a pilot about having sub-committees sitting under the main LRF executive, which is politically led, to brief MPs and council leaders on the highest risks that the council chief execs are working on with all the statutory agencies. We were not one of the selected areas, but we have decided to go ahead and set one up in my area and, as the police and crime commissioner, I am currently chairing it.

Ben Houchen: There has been a huge Government push, in recent months, to try to get the co-ordination and coterminous boundaries to match, because this Government have definitely doubled down on the idea that mayors should be both police and crime commissioners and in charge of the fire authority.

It probably does not surprise many people in this room that I am one of the exceptions among pretty much all the mayors that are currently elected. Again, for me, it comes back to the strategic point. It is not particularly about the police; it is about the role of the mayor and the role of the combined authority. I personally believe—and I would say this, would I not?—that one of the reasons many of the combined authorities have been so successful is because we have a very narrow remit, which is largely economic regeneration, investment and job creation. That obviously links in to things such as transport and skills, and there is therefore a logical argument to take that further to health, policing and fire and so on.

I would go a different way. If it were me—as I have said, it is not me and it will not be me—I would not give us such broad powers. I would not give me police or fire. What I would give me is more powers over the things I already have a remit for. I would go deeper, rather than broader.

I would therefore try to build into a Bill the need and requirement for better consultation and co-ordination with other democratically elected leaders. The LRF is a perfect example of better co-ordination. The mayor should be on the local resilience forum—that is just a miss, because we are brand new. It does not mean that we have to take over the local resilience forum and be in charge of it all; I think the concept goes beyond that. Obviously, I would say that, as a small-state Conservative, because the more powers you give us, the broader, the more bureaucratic and the less effective we become. Keeping us narrow, but giving us more powers in relation to what we have control over, rather than just broadening it out, will give you better outcomes from us. As I say, I know that I am the exception to the rule in that opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q What about the CIPFA guidance point? Can you address that?

Bill Butler: There is a standard basis for it standardisation and simplification so that you can move between sets of accounts. It seems hugely sensible. Interestingly, I can remember having similar discussions in the early 1980s, when I first qualified, with the then Department of the Environment’s technical advisers. We have made some progress. Yes, the inconsistency is odd. As Gareth said, it causes problems for auditors as well, because they move between places. It does not help the underlying problem that we have been discussing.

[Vikki Slade]

Q You have talked about policy issues, the lack of trust and the suspicion around transparency. I am sure we have all heard assumptions that things are going on in councils. What is your assessment of the possibly complementary role of local public accounts committees sitting alongside the Local Audit Office? Fundamentally, councils, health authorities and education are all intermingled—they are all spending public money. Do you have a view on whether this might be the time to go for that?

Gareth Davies: I work with the current Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. In that set-up, it is an essential part of the effectiveness of the accountability system. I have seen how the Committee works, and it works extremely well on a non-partisan basis. It has a hugely dedicated membership pursuing accountability across government, so it is a very effective model in the House of Commons. Such a body is normally positive in local government in the context of combined authorities—that is where I have seen it mentioned most. As I said earlier, having an audit committee in every local authority is an essential part of good governance. Questions like, “Are we managing the risks to the organisation effectively? Are the controls that we think we have in place operating as intended?” are the meat and drink of an audit committee agenda.

Where a local public accounts committee might have an effect would be in looking across the public service landscape—say, at a combined authority or sub-regional scale, in Greater Manchester, in the west midlands or wherever. I think there is a gap there at the moment. One of my last roles before I stopped auditing local government was auditing the Greater Manchester combined authority; it was ramping up in scale at the time, and it was getting to be very significant, including some health spending and so on. As we know, it is the most developed of the devolved set-ups at the moment. I can see how, in that arena, a local public accounts committee would add real value by looking beyond the institution, which an individual audit committee cannot do, and by looking at value for money in the sub-region. If that is what we are talking about, it would be a body that we in the National Audit Office could engage with in order to follow the public pound from national policy making, through to sub-regional infrastructure and so on, and through to council delivery. All parts of that are important, including right at the individual local authority level.

Bill Butler: I have nothing to add.

[The Chair]

Do you agree with Gareth?

Bill Butler: I do. My only plea at the moment is that what we have got does not work, so that may be an aspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q You make the point about creating organisations and capacity that reflects the will and want of the people. A big part of that is diversity and representation. One of the challenges that we have had in the community sector is that it tends to be those parts of the community who have the social capital, the time and so on who are at the forefront of that. I am interested in your views on what we should be thinking about to ensure that whatever neighbourhood governance structures we create are genuinely representative and have that diversity of views and opinions to genuinely drive the will and want of the community.

Sacha Bedding: The first thing is that we have to make it accessible. I will always advocate for a community organising approach, because I think that releasing people’s agency, so that they feel that they can take action on the things they care about, is a route to that. However, whether it is asset-based community development, old traditional community development or community organising, that is where we start. We start where people are, not where we would like them to be.

If we can do that and resource that, there are thousands of people willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved where they live. I see it every day; you see it in your constituencies every day. This is not some great big secret—it is just, “Go out and ask them.” On the flipside of that, our sector, like every other sector, has been hammered for a long time, but releasing the skills and talents of local people to take action on the things they care about will answer that question.

[Vikki Slade]

Q I absolutely support your comment about the reopening of the community improvement fund or similar, but last week we had the Museum of Broken Dreams downstairs, which showcased some incredible projects that had failed due to various issues. This Bill is a good start, but does it go far enough? For example, it is great to see supporting assets included, but are they the right ones? What about environmental assets—places within communities for nature and open space? Would they be something you would be interested in expanding to?

Sacha Bedding: I do not work in an area of environmental concern. If there are environmental opportunities in places, the broader the scope of what we consider an asset of community value to be, the better, in my opinion. I do not think we should prescribe that it must be bricks and mortar. For us in Hartlepool, things such as long-term plans for neighbourhoods should include the sea. That is our greatest asset, after the people who live there, and every community plan could involve the sea, for example. The environmental opportunities are there; whether we can distinguish whether they are social or environmental does not matter—let us expand the scope.

However, we should also look at the right to shape public services, because too often the people who are receiving services do not have a stake in the design of those services and the right to control investment. That is a big one. I do not mean, for example, Hartlepool getting 10 nuclear modular power stations, although that is great news; I mean at the neighbourhood level, where houses can be built, or not built, as we have just heard. People should have a stake in that decision. If you want more housing built, work alongside people who live in that community now. Do not just internally exile them, flatten the houses and say, “Hard luck, son.” That is not an answer.

The more expansive the assets of community value are, the better. The opportunity to expand the community rights is there, and it makes more sense for everybody. On homelessness strategies, where people are still on the streets and we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, or a literacy strategy, where one in three people is illiterate and that works with cohesion, if people can bring those together, they will coalesce around a place, and they can do that far better if those rights are enhanced.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Mr Bedding, for coming down and for your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 10 minutes, because our Minister has been sitting here and she has to give evidence next. We will resume at 5.20 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q May I put a point of clarification? If there is no independent financial assessment, on what basis do the Government have a view that 500,000 is the most efficient size?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to the fact that it is not just about savings and efficiency, but about removing fragmentation and about what makes sense in terms of the types of services that we are asking local authorities to deliver—it is a whole set of things. That is our benchmark, but ultimately the basis of localism is to say to places, “Given these parameters, what do you think makes sense?” We will use that to make decisions.

[Vikki Slade]

Q Most areas that are currently undergoing local government reorganisation seem to be moving at pace to set up town and parish councils, if they do not have them, to protect their assets, protect their identity and retain local democratic accountability, because they are nervous about decisions being taken a long way away. That demonstrates how much they are valued. Yet places are not being supported to do so. There is no duty to co-operate with, include or consult with town and parish councils in the Bill. The funding for neighbourhood planning is gone, and I have had confirmation today that it is not coming back. There is no money to support the community right to buy. I believe that the desire for devolution is genuine, and we share it, but if you want to devolve to truly local people, you have to include and value the community level. Will you be open to reviewing the role of town and parish councils and how local people can truly get involved, either through town and parish councils or through community activism, rather than it being top-down?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: The push of powers to communities is absolutely critical to us, and the duty on local authorities to think about neighbourhood governance is trying to get to the heart of that. Parish councils may be the structures and institutions that the local authority decides to build on, but it is not consistent across the country, so we have to ensure that we are finding the right governance structures for different places so that communities have a genuine voice. We have to ensure that we have diversity of representation, which we need for this to be enduring and for it to ensure that there is power and voice for communities. The commitment is there, and that is why we have it. We were very clear that this was not just about strategic authorities or local authorities, but was absolutely about the neighbourhood level. How we get that right has to be a conversation—an iterative relationship with places. That is the bit that we are absolutely committed to.

[Mrs Blundell]

Q Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today. In Rochdale borough, where I am an MP, we will never forget the appalling case of Awaab Ishak, who of course was the two-year-old toddler who lost his life as a result of the local housing association’s failures. This came after Rochdale Boroughwide Housing removed elected representatives from its board. They were the people who could voice the concerns of local people on the representative body. Do you agree that local councillors or the local authority should be represented on housing boards, and that their statutory role on those boards would only serve to strengthen the voices and protect the rights of tenants?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are clear that councillors have an absolutely fundamental role to play in the democratic system that we are trying to create. They are not only elected, but champions and conduits for their community.

As we drive through these reforms, there is a question about how we build on the power of councillors and the role that they play, whether within our neighbourhood governance structures or, indeed, in how they interact with the mayor, and the accountability and scrutiny of the mayor.

You can have our assurance that councillors have a fundamental role in the landscape and are part of the infrastructure that we need to build on. There are huge opportunities for that as we take the process forward.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.

The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.

Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.

Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.

I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.

Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.

In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve.

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

Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.

The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were

“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,

and I wholly agree.

Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.

I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.

However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics?

[Vikki Slade]

A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.

Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through?

[Vikki Slade]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern that some areas risk being left behind by this muddled approach. I ask the Secretary of State for assurances on how she will ensure that such areas do not fall further behind neighbours that are further along in the programme.

We Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government are reversing the Conservatives’ disastrous decision to use first past the post for mayoral and police commissioner elections—it is ridiculous that one of the mayors elected this May won on just 25% of the vote—but the Government must go further in making votes fair. We believe that the Government should bring in the alternative vote system so that voters’ voices are properly heard. We maintain that if the Government believe in majority support for elected officials, they should extend that mandate to MPs and councillors, too.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Sussex mayoral elections that are due to take place in May next year will use the current first-past-the-post system rather than the proposed system that the Government say they favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair on Sussex residents that everybody who is a year behind in the programme will get to vote using a better system?

[Vikki Slade]

I will come to that later in my speech, when I will share the concerns of electoral officials about whether the legislation can deliver in time for any of the changes scheduled for next year. Although I recognise that there is an anomaly for next year, even electoral officials are worried about the Bill’s timeline and the ability to make any changes for 2026 and for those who have already had elections delayed.

Across the sector, there are serious concerns about the power of the commissioners that will be appointed by mayors—people with significant influence but little scrutiny. There is concern that they will hold more sway than elected leaders of local authorities but without any democratic accountability. In the very centre, the Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without parliamentary oversight or local consent. I am seeking an explanation of how and when those powers would be used, so that we can assure our local leaders that they will not be overridden.

There is widespread concern about the loss of highly skilled, experienced councillors through the removal of district councils. I noted the Secretary of State’s concerns about putting power into the hands of too few people. How will she ensure that there is not a democratic and skills deficit and that people are properly represented across these larger regions?

For the last decade, the Conservative Government have cut funding to councils but forced them to do more. Their economic mismanagement and failure to fix social care has left many councils on the brink of collapse. This Bill was an opportunity for real local government reform, but it is an opportunity missed.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

A particular concern of my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead, where we have one local authority in Devon and one in Somerset, is the real difficulties around special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could create difficulties for local authorities that are struggling to deliver good SEND education for so many of our children?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Special educational needs are a huge passion of mine—I am sure Members have heard me talk about them many times—and this issue will take so many councils to a very dark place. I trust that the Minister hears that on a regular basis and that we will see in the fair funding review something really serious about special educational needs provision.

Local authorities have unique access to every household and business, which gives them a huge opportunity to improve people’s health and wellbeing. The Bill requires strategic authorities to improve the health of their communities, but I am concerned that it does not provide substantial funding to do that, and without that funding, I cannot see how it can be achieved. While the Bill makes substantial improvements to the workings of audit, it misses the opportunity to shine a light on all the places that taxpayers’ money is spent through the introduction of local public accounts committees. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State refer to that being in her thinking, but rolling them out alongside strategic authorities would really aid transparency, improve value for money and enable organisations to share resources for the good of the community. I urge the Government to reflect on that as we go towards the Report stage.

The Bill also proposes that strategic authorities take on the functions of police and crime commissioners and fire authorities. However, because of the disparity in boundaries, there is a real risk that community priorities will not be maintained, and the control of such things by appointed rather than elected commissioners further reduces democratic accountability. How will the Government ensure fair funding and effective policing and fire services where strategic authorities cover vastly different communities?

Councils have expressed similar concerns about a mismatch between places within those authorities—for example, the different needs of urban and rural areas, or the inclusion of a single authority among a cluster of places with very different levels of deprivation or demographics. Some communities feel that where decisions are made by simple majority vote, their voice will not be heard. Weighted voting and the meaningful inclusion of town and parish councils can ensure that local insight is retained, particularly around issues such as planning and transport.

Representation must not end there. This Bill was an opportunity to ensure that local services draw on and are informed by the full range of lived experiences in an area.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill could make it more difficult for residents to access services, because where authorities that currently deliver services on a county-wide basis are split into multiple authorities, it will create borders within counties?

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.

District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?

[Vikki Slade]

I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.

We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track?

[Vikki Slade]

I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.

As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Competition and Markets Authority recently found that major house builders were preventing and distorting competition, including by matching prices and incentives to buyers. That further damages public confidence in house buying, and will have pushed home ownership out of the reach of many people. House builders have agreed to pay £100 million towards affordable housing schemes, but what redress is available for homeowners who have been misled? How will the Government achieve oversight of that funding to ensure that builders are held accountable, the additional homes are delivered, and there are effective disincentives to stop this happening again?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 interests. This weekend was a fantastic economic boost for many seaside towns, but along with the visitors, towns such as Poole and Bournemouth are blighted with illegal parking on roundabouts and across driveways and pavements. The Minister knows exactly what I am about to say: with 1,700 tickets issued, with the most dangerous cars towed away and with fines fixed for 20 years, does he believe that it is reasonable that council tax payers should pick up the bill of up to £200 per towed-away car for an illegal driver?

[Alex Norris]

It is incumbent on all of us to park with a degree of responsibility, particularly at peak times. I think parking-related issues are the No. 1 feature of my mailbag. Our consultation on private parking opened last Friday. I am interested in working with the hon. Lady and all Members to ensure that we get the balance right.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

Local government funding is in crisis, from social care to special needs, homelessness to high streets. Our councils—whose work impacts us all and who are the backbone of local service delivery—are being pushed to the brink. While the estimate sounds positive, it is way more complicated, just like the work that councils do. The lack of funding is not a new problem. The hollowing-out of local government has been happening for a decade. In my home councils of BCP and Dorset, central funding through the revenue support grant was slashed by between 95% and 98% over that time. The Government’s announcement that central funding for councils with low tax bases will be weighted sort of misses the point. Many councils in the south receive no revenue support grant and are already raising their council tax by the maximum 5% each year. The Government need to talk to the councils they are targeting and review this proposal before they create a new problem.

Local areas are dealing with ageing populations and soaring house prices, and councils risk having no choice but to take money directly from services for the poorest, sickest and most vulnerable. The three-year settlements are welcome to help planning, and the headline £13.5 billion increase in Department funding by 2028-29 sounds positive, but measured against 2025-26 it is actually a real-terms cut of 0.6%. While MHCLG’s day-to-day spending will rise by £2.5 billion, much of this comes through transfers. For example, much of the £857 million for adult social care is reallocated from children’s social care, and the £515 million to cover increased national insurance contributions does not cover the demand.

Adult social care is now the largest spending area for upper-tier authorities. Meanwhile, tensions between the NHS and councils over who funds the sick and elderly are growing, leaving families stuck in the middle. Carers bear the brunt, often being forced to choose between caring and working, which has knock-on effects on the wider economy and carers’ wellbeing. The situation is made worse because independent providers are not covered for the NICs increase. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the increase in national insurance will cost independent social care employers £940 million this year. Many are handing back contracts, unable to make the numbers add up, which is piling pressures on to councils. I urge the Minister to look closely at the impact of this change. The Liberal Democrats want a social care workforce plan, a royal college of care workers to improve recognition, and a higher carer’s minimum wage. We call on the Government to complete the Casey review within one year instead of three. The elderly, disabled and our NHS deserve better than further delay.

The crisis extends beyond adult care, affecting our youngest children too. SEND provision is, as we know, inconsistent and underfunded. Parents are exhausted, teachers are overwhelmed, and children are being left behind. We are relieved, rather than happy, that the statutory override will continue for another two years, because many councils would face insolvency within months without it, but this merely defers the inevitable. As debts outgrow reserves, councils cannot invest in their communities or drive local growth.

The upcoming White Paper must guarantee every child with an EHCP the support that works for them, make mainstream education more inclusive so that children can stay close to home with their peers, and urgently reform the funding formula. The funding formula does not work. In some areas, the annual base funding per pupil is £2,500 less than in others. Schools have to fund the first £6,000 for any special educational support, but some schools do not get £6,000 a year for a pupil’s whole education. The Liberal Democrats really are begging for that to be resolved. In specialist provision, I have seen independent settings charge more than £100,000 to educate children with moderate needs when a state-maintained special school is doing the same for £20,000; but, without alternatives, councils are forced to pay.

The loss of the £100 million rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to rural councils, so I welcome the consultation on reviewing that, but those councils face not just higher delivery costs but recruitment challenges. It was wrong for the Government to suggest that rural communities do not face the same deprivation—tell that to some of my constituents who have no mains gas and no sewerage, no job opportunities and are miles from anything.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £267 million for rough sleeping and £194 million for homelessness prevention, and we are pleased that that has been ringfenced, but without a target for social house building, councils remain burdened with the costs of temporary accommodation. It is not just about money: the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report revealed that temporary housing is detrimental to our children’s health, with it being a factor in the deaths of 74 children, including 58 infants, in the last five years. It also damages the developmental, mental health and life chances of every child in that situation. We therefore welcome the £39 billion investment in affordable housing, but we are disappointed to see how backloaded it is, meaning that many families will wait up to 10 years finally to get a roof over their heads.

Finally, I want to address devolution. The Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, so we are disappointed that the Government have cancelled funding for neighbourhood plans and are discouraging the formation of new town and parish councils where there is local government reorganisation. Instead, we are seeing top-down area committees with no statutory powers. The spending review mentions funding for mayoral areas, but that benefits only those areas that are ready to go. What about the areas outside wave one such as Kent and Medway, or Wessex? Where is their support in the meantime? Our local councils deliver every day, but they cannot do it alone, so I urge the Government please to provide fair funding and real devolution for those areas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Chinese Embassy Development

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.

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

Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.