Power to Cancel Local Elections

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Mundell. Thank you for chairing this debate. I also thank the almost 153,000 people across the country who signed the petition, including 186 in my constituency of Woking who I think signed it because they—we—unreasonably lost our right to vote in Surrey county council’s elections last year, which were unreasonably taken away by this Government.

Did people lose their right to vote because of massive, significant events that meant that we just could not go and vote? Was it a world war? Elections in the first world war and the second war had to be postponed. Was it a foot and mouth crisis like 2001?

[Mr Francois]

Just as a matter of record, we had a general election in Britain in July 1945, when we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, I see no reason why we could not have local elections this May in peacetime.

[Mr Forster]

I quite agree. My memory does not stretch back as far as that, but the right hon. Gentleman is completely right. Elections have been postponed only during serious wartime, during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001 and, as we all—even I—remember, during the covid pandemic in 2020. But in Surrey and across a lot of the country, people lost their right to vote because of local government reorganisation, which is not exactly an existential threat to our way of life.

People in Surrey are now stuck with county councillors who were last elected in 2021. The only reason why there are Conservatives representing my constituency is that since 2021 it has not been possible to vote them out of office. Every year since then, the Conservatives have put up candidates for Woking borough council. They have lost every single election.

We are now creating a new council for my area, West Surrey council. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give my area a fresh start. We have not had such an opportunity for 50 years, but in the meetings setting it in motion, there are people who have lost their mandate because it has expired. That is completely unreasonable, and it is because of the use of the Secretary of State’s powers that the petition opposes. After the past month, the Secretary of State probably wishes he had never had them in the first place.

These are my questions to the Minister. Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can she confirm whether the same legal considerations applied to the nine local council elections that were postponed in 2025, including those for Surrey county council? Can she confirm to me and my Woking constituents, by outlining what legal advice the Government have had, that those elections were lawfully postponed? Finally, what material change in circumstances occurred between the decision to postpone the 2026 local elections and the subsequent decision to reverse that postponement?

Because the Government have not been open and transparent about the legal advice that they received, my constituents of Woking and the 153,000 people who signed the petition have lost what little trust they had in government and politics. The Government can start to regain that trust by publishing their legal advice and ensuring that in future no one Minister can cancel local elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Cancelling elections is always wrong, unless there is an extreme situation that necessitates postponement of an election. I cannot think of many examples in recent years in which that was necessary. I remember when Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council. She extended its term by one year only and then the GLC was, rightly, abolished. I remember that during the covid pandemic, the Greater London Authority’s term was extended by one year, but then it was shortened in the next term, so there was a five-year term and then a three-year term. Cancelling elections—I think, in this case, purely for political reasons—is fundamentally dishonest of this Government. It was only because of the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who sought a judicial review, that the Government were forced to do another U-turn, allowing the right of the people of this country to vote for their chosen local councillors in the forthcoming elections on 7 May.

I would like to make a further point, because democracy is not only about how people vote in local elections and whom they choose as their local councillors; it is also about the structure of local government. My borough is the London borough of Havering, as the Minister knows only too well because I have spoken about it on many occasions. I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) did not acknowledge that the London borough of Havering actually is also an Essex borough. The problem is that the people of my borough have never been given the chance to choose whether we want to be under the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, or whether we would prefer to be a unitary authority or under the new Greater Essex. We simply do not get given the chance to decide. We are not asked. Our opinion does not matter. We are forced into an artificial Greater London structure that does not suit the interests of my borough. It means that we are paying vast sums of money to, effectively, subsidise inner London. It means that things like ULEZ are imposed on us. It means that planning is taken out of our control, so we are Londonised and are becoming a concrete jungle. All these things have no democratic mandate from the people of Havering.

Postponing elections is really just as bad as denying local people the right to choose what kind of structure they would like to be in. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton was in Romford outside the town hall only last week, and the popularity in my borough of a local referendum on becoming a unitary authority outside Greater London is extremely high. I say to the Minister that if we believe in democracy, we need to be given the chance to make those decisions.

The key point here is that we are only debating this issue because of the petition—I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on introducing it to the House. Frankly, it is a disgrace that we have to do this and that so many people had to sign a petition purely to demand their right to vote in a democratic election on 7 May. My borough was voting anyway; our election was not postponed. We are looking forward to quite a big change in Havering—and I think there will be a big change—because people are tired of being governed by City Hall and tired of being governed by a town hall that is not representative of the local community. I firmly believe that we will have the first Reform UK council in the Greater London area.

I would like to make a point to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I agree with everything he said. The Liberal Democrats have an honourable position in terms of democracy—I think there was a little issue in Cheltenham, but let’s not worry about that. The Liberal Democrats were very clear that there should have been elections. However, under the restructuring of local government, his new local authority will be called West Surrey. Surely it should be called West Surrey and South Middlesex to reflect the true historic county identity of that area. If we are going to rename local authorities, we should give them names that reflect the geography and history of the area. It is very important that Middlesex is included in the name of the new unitary authority. I hope he agrees.

[Mr Forster]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that matter, with which I have some sympathy, and which Liberal Democrat colleagues in Spelthorne have highlighted. We are going to have a new council called West Surrey, one sixth of which is in south Middlesex. The Government are considering the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and I hope they give it due consideration. One of the concerns is that only one sixth is in south Middlesex, so why should it be half the name? However, I am more concerned about the fact that the council will inherit over £4 billion of debt from the former Conservative administrations. That is more of a priority for me than the name, but I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has sympathy with me, because local identity matters. Giving a council a name that everyone feels represented by is very important, so I hope that will become a reality. Middlesex Heritage is campaigning strongly for this. Even I get requests to raise this issue, although I am not a Middlesex MP—I am an Essex MP, and proud of it.

I hope that the Government have learned a lesson here. Democracy has been fought for over many centuries and many generations. It is not something to just discard, postpone or delay purely for political advantage. I am afraid that the Government have been caught out on this issue. I believe the Minister should apologise today for the denial of democracy. Thank goodness the threat of a judicial review prompted the Government to make the U-turn so that the people of this country can properly vote in local elections on 7 May.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Surrey is the first local authority to undergo local government reorganisation under this Government’s new plan because of the catastrophic failures of local Conservative councils: Woking borough council, Surrey county council and a raft of others have significant issues. The Minister has already highlighted that the Government have agreed to an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million for one local authority, Woking borough council. The Government have never written off debts for one local authority on its own before, yet they are now doing so on such a large scale. The Government have said that that is the first tranche of an unprecedented debt write-off.

Moreover, the Minister has confirmed to me that the Government will provide interim financial support to the new West Surrey council, including capitalisation support and commercial support and advice to deal with the historical legacy of assets. Local authorities should keep the streets clean and maintain our parks, but they were acting like bank and property empires. Why are the Government happy for a new council, West Surrey council, to start off effectively bankrupt without the Government support that is so needed? Currently, Spelthorne borough council and Woking borough council are in intervention, with Government commissioners in post. Will those commissioners remain in situ after those councils have been abolished, or will they be transferred to West Surrey council? When will that decision be made, if the Minister cannot make it today?

My next point concerns articles 46 and 48 of the draft order and the cancelling of elections, particularly last year, for Surrey county council. The Government have decided to reschedule the elections that were previously going to be cancelled, due to their potentially unlawful nature. Can the Minister tell us what advice she and the Government have had on whether cancelling Surrey county council’s elections last year was also unlawful, before we make a decision today on formalising these provisions?

Finally, schedules 1 and 2 are about the new wards for East Surrey and West Surrey councils. I believe those wards were established for Surrey county council under the Local Government Boundary Commission for England but never implemented. Is that the case? The Minister said she assumes the Local Government Boundary Commission will review those wards before the next scheduled set of elections. Does she believe there is time for the new councils to establish themselves, to understand what council size is needed, then to undertake an 18-month review? Does she genuinely believe there is enough time for the Government to do that?

Local Government Reorganisation

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of legal advice that was given to the Government, but there is nothing unusual at all about giving fresh ministerial consideration when decisions are revisited after legal advice is received. That is what happened.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can the Secretary of State confirm whether the same legal considerations also applied to the elections to Surrey county council—which covers my constituency—that were postponed last year? If he states that the Government do not comment on legal advice, do you not agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my Woking constituents have been unlawfully robbed of voting out an incompetent Surrey county council last year?

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, the unitary council elections will be going ahead in Surrey this year.

Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate. Shelter is a basic human need. It is a human right. The Liberal Democrats and I believe that everyone has the right to a safe, secure and adequate home.

This issue is close to my heart. When I served as the Mayor of Woking, I supported Woking’s local homeless shelter, the York Road Project, by raising money and awareness for it. I knew at the time that I was raising money for a good cause, but the covid pandemic hit as soon as we had finished raising that money, and it was invaluable in protecting vulnerable people at one of the most vulnerable times. That project is a high-quality provider of support.

Woking’s women’s refuge, Your Sanctuary, is a high-quality provider of exempt accommodation, but I know that residents of exempt accommodation elsewhere are being let down badly, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Those residents have effectively been denied the support they need. Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money is wasted—or, more accurately, transferred to the bank accounts of landlords and providers who are taking advantage of the destitute. We need to sort that problem out right now. The system of exempt accommodation was described in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s October 2022 report as a “complete mess”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s supported housing review, published in 2024, estimated that there are over 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England alone. The review estimated that by 2040 between almost 1 million and 1.3 million supported housing units will be needed, considering the current demand, predicted increase, demographic trends and unmet need. The situation is spiralling out of control, and the Government need to get a grip.

There are many good providers—I have talked about some in my constituency, and I hope that all Members have similar examples—but there are awful and appalling instances where the system allows the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. It is apparent that there is a gold rush, with money mainly being transferred from the taxpayer through housing benefit. That is a sorry state of affairs.

It has now been three years since the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was passed and received Royal Assent. Unsurprisingly, the wheels of Government have ground along at a snail’s pace. Three years have gone by, but the Act has still not been implemented due to difficulties in creating regulations. Last year, The Guardian reported:

“People are dying…and communities are being irreversibly damaged due to delays to a…law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing”.

Will the Government enable a situation in this Parliament in which we can create regulations, stem the flow of cash into what is essentially a black market, and halt those deaths?

Right now, as we debate in Westminster Hall, vulnerable people in our society—the homeless, survivors of domestic abuse, those with mental health issues and those released from prison—are subject to dangerous housing conditions with little or no support. There is a general consensus across the major political parties that the regulation contained in the Act is needed, so surely it should be implemented as soon as possible. The Government should stop dragging their feet.

The Act was meant to improve the situation when it was passed. It states that a panel should be set up and that after three years, the panel should come up with recommendations for changing planning law. That panel has not yet been convened. I have heard from constituents, local authorities and campaigners who are worried that it was forgotten about in the light of the general election. The extended timeline risks further escalation of these issues without immediate intervention.

On behalf of people affected by this issue, I urge the Minister to consider, first, convening the panel now to enable action on this issue and, secondly, accelerating the panel’s timeline for giving its recommendations. Given that there has already been a delay of over a year in setting up the panel, having it make recommendations three years after it is set up will mean that these ongoing issues will continue to affect people for too long. I urge the Minister to act.

Local Government Finance

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for opening this debate on the settlement. I know the work that he and the Local Government Minister have led on in bringing forward this statement, and they have been strong voices for our local government colleagues. I should declare that the Secretary of State and I served at Lambeth council, and the Minister served as a councillor in Southwark, one of my neighbouring boroughs. I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for the work he did with many councils to get us to the place we are at.

I know that many local authorities across England will be delighted to see that the Government are going to be covering 90% of the debt that has built up through supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. The issue of SEND appears in all our inboxes, and it has been a big ongoing issue for many councils, regardless of which party leads them. The issue is how we continue to support some of the most vulnerable children, so we must ensure that councils are adequately funded in this area.

If we are honest, SEND costs are not of councils’ making. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), highlighted, the costs are a result of the broken system, which is finally being addressed by this Government. I hope that the Government will continue to address this issue in the upcoming schools White Paper.

One of the first things that everyone across local government asks for is certainty from the Government—certainty that authorities can make long-term investments in infrastructure; certainty that they have the funding to build the homes that we need; and certainty that they can start turning around the 14 years of under-investment in local government. I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear about it, but we saw 14 years of under-investment in SEND, temporary accommodation and adult social care. We should all welcome the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which ends the year-on-year waiting game that held back investment for too long.

This settlement has been called for not only by the current Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee but by its predecessor Committee, which was chaired by my wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It is good to see that the Government are finally listening on this issue.

We welcome the reduction in the number of grants. We have been asking our cash-strapped councils to continually bid for small pots of money. That means officer time being taken away from frontline services. Councils are bidding for those pots when, in some cases, they will not even be successful. That is not a good use of vital officers’ time, and in some cases the councils had to justify submitting the bids in the first place. We really do welcome this crucial change.

There are two other areas I want to focus on, one of which has been raised by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. The reality is that even with this welcome funding, a number of councils will still face budgetary issues. The Local Government Association anticipates that more councils may apply for exceptional financial support. When we see more councils having to apply for emergency funding, there is nothing exceptional about it. We cannot have a situation where councils have to rely on emergency funding to carry out day-to-day services and to avoid declaring bankruptcy. I hope that the Government will look at this area.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am concerned that the Government’s support package for councils such as Woking borough council—which effectively went bankrupt several years ago following Conservative mismanagement—is allowing them to borrow more money to pay off their Government loans. Does she agree that the exceptional financial support process needs to change immediately?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member, an excellent colleague on our cross-party Select Committee, for his intervention. The Committee looked at this in our report on local government finance, and he will remember that our report stated:

“Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) by means of capitalisation direction is a stopgap measure that avoids section 114 notices and allows councils to produce short-term balanced budgets, but can weaken councils’ finances and capital investment in the long term.”

There is an issue, and we cannot keep sweeping it under the carpet and thinking that it is going to go away—it is not. In the long term, we are building more debts for those councils, which we have to look at addressing. I am pleased that the Government are going to ensure that councils applying for ESF have a wholesale root-and-branch review of how that money is to be allocated.

We know that this multi-year funding process will not solve the underlying issues facing all our councils. Another area at the heart of this issue, which I have mentioned on many occasions and on which there is growing cross-party support, is the reliance on the most regressive form of taxation to pay for mandatory demand-led services, where councils have little control over that demand. Council tax amounts to about half of the settlement total, with an assumption of the maximum increase across the board, despite the fact that the Government have little control over how much that figure will be. The Secretary of State has highlighted that in boroughs where the referendum principle will be lifted, the Government are assuming that increasing council tax will help, with some councils having to increase their council tax by over 30% just to reach their core spending powers and the figures in the settlement.

I think we all understand the challenges the Government face when it comes to balancing the books and the inheritance they were left with after 14 years. These are difficult decisions that we have to make, but let me take us back to when the former Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, told us:

“There is a real danger to the democratic process if there is not a link between the tax that people are paying and the quality of public services that they are getting in return.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 850.]

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words on my role in developing the draft Bill. I can say to him very plainly: yes. If he looks at the consultation on service charge protections that we released last summer, he will see proposals that specifically address non-litigation costs and other measures. However, as I said, it is our intention to ensure that in the enfranchisement process, it is not only cheaper but easier for leaseholders to make use of their new rights and protections if they intend to buy their freehold or extend their lease.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Government have finally published their plans to reform the leasehold system, and I look forward to scrutinising those plans on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In my constituency, we have a range of issues with property management companies, whether it be the mismanagement of the Clock Tower in Maybury or the proposed 30% increase in the service charge at Brookwood Farm, and all are unacceptable. Please will the Minister explain why he is not using the draft Bill to end the wild west of unregulated property companies?

Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave.

In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?

[Mr Bedford]

As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too.

I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities.

Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?

[Mr Bedford]

I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce.

As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say?

To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

At the general election, which we need as soon as possible, we will see how many Reform MPs are elected. I am happy to have an election as soon as possible, because this country needs change. We have been stuck in a rut for years and the British people have had enough. So yes, let us have a general election to get rid of this disastrous Government and put our country in a better place. Going back to the original point, most of the boroughs that are delaying their elections are Labour-controlled, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also requested cancellations, so they do not get off the hook scot-free.

As it stands, more than 600 council seats will not be contested later this year. Almost 4 million people will be denied the chance to elect their local council representatives. It really is shameful. It is unnecessary and wrong, and the policy should be changed. This is nothing short of a scandal. The British people deserve better; they deserve a say about who runs their local councils. That is why Reform UK supports serious consultations on local government reorganisation, and ultimately referendums on it. Local voices cannot be silenced, and we will fight to ensure that they are heard.

Although it brings a short-term advantage to the Labour party, blocking elections harms local people. Take my borough of Havering, for example. In 2000, London governance was reorganised in a manner not dissimilar to the reorganisation that is taking place across the country today. In the 1960s, our area had the administrative title of the London borough of Havering imposed on us, but everyone in Havering knows that we are in Essex. We did not need to be told that we are suddenly part of London when for one and a half millennia we have been under Essex, but the bureaucracy imposed that new title on us. Now we are under the thumb of the elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, so please can we have a referendum on whether to stay part of that regional government structure?

Havering is not London. We do not want our local government controlled by a London Mayor—particularly the current one—and I think most of my constituents would like us to get out. We want to connect with our Essex roots, both culturally and administratively. The people of Havering deserve a referendum on whether they want to continue to be dominated by a political mayor. Whether we remain part of that structure must be their decision. I believe it is time to give local constituents in Romford and throughout the borough of Havering a choice about whether we are under the Mayor of London or whether we should regain our independence and our local identity.

At one point, the Ministry stated that

“all elections should go ahead unless there is strong, evidence-based justification for a temporary delay.”

Those words are now haunting the Labour party. I firmly believe that local and regional government is in dire need of reform, not only in my borough of Havering but across the country, but the answer cannot be less engagement with local people. It must be the opposite of that: giving local people a genuine say about the structure of their local councils.

There should be thorough consultations, crystal clear explanations and referendums in local areas so that the decision is made by local people. Central Government bureaucrats must not make decisions above the heads of local people, ignoring what they truly want. The Government’s current excuses are simply that—worse, in fact. The reality is that this is a political stitch-up to keep local authorities under Labour control. From speaking to people in my constituency who have experienced a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor of London, I have to say that the last thing they want is for Labour to be running their local council. Labour is running from the polls and taking democracy with it; it should change this policy quickly.

There is still time for the Government to do their favourite thing: make a U-turn. We have seen a lot of those recently, so let us see another one on this issue. Local government needs fundamental reform, but the Government must consult people more broadly, respect democracy and allow elections to go ahead as planned. Anything else is unacceptable to local people across this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Reform UK will fight this every step of the way.

I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made a very good point about the identity of the historic counties. For many years, I have fought to combine the historic and the ceremonial counties so that we all have one county identity, rather than the muddle that we have at the moment of ceremonial counties, administrative counties and historic counties. Three definitions of counties is nonsense.

Local government reorganisation means we should go back to the simple concept of a county being a geographical and historical area that we can all feel part of because it is our history and identity. My borough should have always have been under the ceremonial county of Essex. There are lots of other anomalies across the country—in Leicestershire and other parts—but perhaps the Minister could at least take this one back, so that we can have one county identity, which we could then celebrate across the country.

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.

Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate.

The subject of cumulative development has reared its head in my constituency very recently. On Saturday, I hosted a public meeting about plans by Martin Grant Homes to build more than 200 homes on the area known as Saunders Lane—green-belt land between Hook Heath and Mayford in Woking. The venue for the meeting was Mayford village hall, and people were queueing out the door. There were hundreds of people—standing room only. The response was overwhelming, and the message from my community was clear: people are united in not wanting to lose these green-belt fields forever.

The area is already poorly connected and struggling with weak infrastructure as it is—let alone with significant housing development. My residents are deeply concerned about the impact on the local environment, the transport system, wider public services and the character of the area.

On top of the objections to the Saunders Lane plans, there are concerns about the cumulative impact. Only on the next road, Egley Road, 86 homes and a 62-bed care home are under construction, and there is a planning application for 74 new properties. In the very same village, about half a mile down the road, there is planning application for 200 retirement homes and a further care home on Sutton Green golf club. Because all the applications are speculative, the cumulative impact has not been considered.

My local authority, Woking borough council, has started to draft a new local plan, in which locally elected councillors and local people can decide where we build the homes we need. The developers, including Martin Grant, are wrong to pre-empt that fair and democratic process and take away the right of my constituents to shape the future of our area. Because they are pre-empting it, we cannot assess the cumulative impact.

I will be writing to the council and the developer to summarise what happened at Saturday’s meeting and urge everyone to put forward their views. It is blindingly clear that local people feel strongly about where they live. The community is very much alive and well in Mayford, and I am proud that I could respond to and lead the community in such a manner.

Woking is keen to build homes. We have given planning permission for well over 2,000 properties, which are not being built. Planning permission is not the problem in Woking and many other constituencies; the problems are in the construction sector. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that we in Woking can be allowed to shape our area, agree which green fields the local plan will protect, and say where development should happen, without being overturned by decisions from Whitehall?

Electoral Resilience

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It is an independent review, and the reviewer and his team will be able to look at whatever they think may be problematic relating to the core terms of reference. The central part of those terms of reference is to focus on potential malign foreign financial interference in UK politics. That may or may not have a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is right to highlight the appalling case of a senior UK politician being convicted of bribery for taking money from Russia. I am also concerned about a UK political party getting a donation—the largest single donation from a living person—from money abroad, from cryptocurrency. Can he assure me that this independent review, which I welcome, will consider political donations and potentially recommend where we set a political donation cap?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise concerns about cryptocurrency. There is no way of knowing for certain what the origins of that financing might be. It appears to be potentially a back door for malign foreign actors or states to seek to influence British democracy, and we cannot allow that. It will be up to the independent reviewer to choose where he wishes to go with the investigation, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other members of his party will make clear the points he has just made and that they will be fully considered.

Planning Reform

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: BNG plays a vital role in protecting and restoring nature, while enabling us to build the homes that this country needs. The Government remain fully committed to it as an approach to development, but, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, this is a novel system that was introduced only last year. We have heard from developers, local authorities and ecologists that the system needs to work better for some of the smallest developments, and that there are particular challenges on brownfield land. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted earlier this year on updates to the system, and why we are today confirming that we will introduce that new exemption—and we think that 0.2 hectares is the right size for it. There is a suite of other simplifications for smaller and medium sites that are not exempted, and DEFRA will consult on whether any acceptable exemptions are appropriate for residential brownfield land.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

In my constituency there is planning permission for over 2,000 new homes in and around the town centre alone, yet developers are not building those much-needed homes. What steps are the Government taking to tackle developers that are land banking instead of building homes, and are they continuing to refuse to introduce tougher “use it or lose it” powers in these planning reforms?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is wrong to say that this is an area that we are overlooking. I refer the hon. Member to a working paper that sets out a series of proposals to get build-out transparency and accountability up. A delayed homes penalty, for instance, would act as a charge when development could be coming forward but is not. Those proposals are distinct from today’s draft framework, which does not deal with that issue, but I can assure him that it is very much a priority for me and for the Department.