Alison McGovern MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he first allows me to give a little shout-out to my local mayor, Steve Rotheram. The Centre for Cities recently found that over the past decade under his leadership the employment rate in Liverpool has gone from 61% to 71%—a 10-point increase. That is a miracle, and I pay tribute to Steve Rotheram for his work on that.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today’s debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. It has been an absolute pleasure to hear from—I think—nine Members on the Back Benches about their constituencies, all of which, I am certain, are equally lovable and great places to visit. As Members have set out, this is an extremely important issue across the country. I respect the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who speaks for the Opposition. He has a passion for the tourism and visitor economy, and he is right to say—as other Members, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, set out—what an important part of our economy the tourism industry is. I agree with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham on that. I will focus some of my remarks on devolution, because the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. We now know that mayoral devolution works in terms of economic growth. From the construction of the Elizabeth line here in our great capital to Greater Manchester’s integrated transport, devolution has delivered results in getting the infrastructure that we need for growth. I just say to hon. Members that I am not immune to the arguments they have made about the challenges to economies in different parts of the country; those points have been well made. If somebody had told 13-year-old me that one day people would go for a mini-break on Merseyside, I would have thought they were barking up the wrong tree. But, believe it or not, tourists and visitors of all kinds have saved the city I love, so I am not remotely immune to the arguments Members are making. It is extremely important that we consider carefully how to grow those parts of our economy that really need it, and particularly coastal areas. I take what Members have said very seriously, and I will consider it as part of the Government’s consultation. When I was listening to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire describe very effectively the effect of tourism on our economy, I wrote down the word “Brexit”, given the effect it has had. It is too late in the day for me to become grumpy now, so I will just crack on, because this is a serious subject. The truth is that our country’s economy needs to grow at a faster rate than it has over the past decade and a half or so. The question is how we make that happen. The truth about our country is that power is extremely centralised, which means we have historically taken decisions for those places with the most power—largely the south-east. However, recent decades of devolution—under both parties that have been in power—have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. That is what devolution is all about. Mayors already hold levers for growth, from transport to planning, skills and housing.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  If mayors are not talking to their local Members of Parliament, they are missing an opportunity and an important part of their role. I will certainly take what my hon. Friend says into consideration as we move forward with this. We have seen internationally how well-designed visitor levies can support growth, making places better to live, work in and visit, while also strengthening tourism and local businesses. Visitor levies have been used internationally for tourism, promotion and marketing, sustainable tourism projects, public transport, parks, public facilities, cultural heritage, restoration and so on. The principle is very straightforward: visitors who benefit from local services and amenities make a fair contribution to maintaining and improving them. That is fiscal devolution. Mayors will be best placed to judge whether a levy is right for their area, reflecting different priorities, their own economies and local democratic accountability. That is the point I want to emphasise. Hon. Members have mentioned different parts of England and different economies, a point I accept entirely. That is the whole point of devolution. If decisions about the economy are taken only in this postcode, they will not be right, because England’s economy is extremely diverse. I want to turn briefly to questions about exemptions, specifically scouts and guides. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who spoke passionately about the campaign run by his constituents is sadly not here, but I hope he might find out that I applaud the civic responsibility shown by those young people. The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence, as queried by a couple of hon. Members. This is obviously a consultation, and we will say more when we bring forward proposals. Several national exemptions were also proposed, such as stays on registered Gypsy and Traveller sites where it is a primary residence, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned; charitable or non-profit accommodation for shelter, respite or refuge; and certain types of temporary accommodation. I take the point about scouts and guides very seriously. Final decisions will be set out in the Government’s consultation response. A number of Members mentioned the cost of family holidays, and I want to flag that that issue is worth bearing in mind, particularly as we did not do all that work on the child poverty strategy to improve family incomes if they cannot afford a break, which many families up and down the country truly need right now. The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales have already legislated to introduce visitor levies and we are learning carefully from their experience. We also want to learn from those who would be affected by a levy in England, which is why we have taken a thorough and open approach to consultation. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others. Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power. On the use of revenues, any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. That is why we propose that the decision on how those revenues are spent should sit with local leaders, who can best understand local needs, pressures and opportunities. The levy must be fair and proportionate, which is why we consulted on the different types of accommodation to which it should apply. We asked whether there should be a threshold below which providers are not liable, and proposed a small number of national exemptions, which I have spelled out. We also sought views on how the levy should be charged. In the consultation, we asked about a percentage-based rate, which would scale with the cost of a stay, but we also recognise the potential benefits of alternative approaches, such as a flat-rate model. Recognising that local leaders know their area best, we asked whether mayors should have the flexibility to set levy rates locally, reflecting local priorities. Those questions, alongside many others, are being considered carefully by my Department and the Treasury as part of the next stage of policy development. I will ensure that other Ministers involved receive a copy of Hansard that covers this debate. The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King’s Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament. Between now and then, we will continue to engage closely with all those who may be affected to ensure that this policy is well designed and locally led and that it delivers for communities as well as for visitors. I take it as read that Members who have contributed know that my door is always open to them if they want to discuss this issue. The proposals we have discussed reflect a clear direction of travel for this Government. We want to give leaders the powers and tools they need to support growth, to introduce policies that can help shape their communities and to give their place the strongest possible future. By strengthening devolution and giving communities a greater say over their own revenues, we can build a system that is simpler, more accountable and better able to deliver for the people of this country. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from right across the House and with local partners as we move forward in developing this policy.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point. On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period. That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system. The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum. In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system. As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Department conducts significant work with local authorities to understand their costs, precisely so that we can make the adjustments I am talking about. If he has specific questions relating to Bromley, I encourage him to drop me a note at the Department so that I can get him a technical response. The City of London has a long-standing bespoke funding arrangement known as the “offset”, the administration of which is set out in the retained rates regulations. For 2026-27, it has already been agreed that the offset will remain in place, and that its value will be uprated from £13.5 million to £14 million in line with established precedent, to ensure that its value keeps pace with inflation. Finally, we are making a number of small amendments to manage complexity where possible, including disapplying provisions that no longer apply, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining major funding mechanisms in the system. These regulations make a series of important technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system, and they implement what is required to update the system as a result of local government funding reforms and changes to the tax that have already been announced. If approved, the regulations will ensure that councils receive the business rates income that the system is designed to deliver. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The Government are delivering long-overdue funding reforms for English local government and introducing improvements to realign funding with need and deprivation as part of the first multi-year settlement in a decade. A key element of the reforms is the reset of the business rates retention system, which is a central component of the local government finance framework. Under the business rates retention system, English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect and benefit when their local business rates income grows. Resetting the system realigns funding with need while maintaining the incentive for authorities to promote growth. In parallel with reforms that reset how business rates are used for funding, the Government are also reforming business rates tax policy. As a result, technical amendments are required to the framework through which business rates fund local government, in order to mitigate the impact that the changes would otherwise have on local government funding. The business rates retention system is built on straightforward principles, but it necessarily requires complex administrative arrangements that are underpinned by legislation that must be kept up to date as the system changes. The amendment regulations before the Committee provide the updates that are required this year to give practical effect to the reset and wider reforms that are being delivered through the settlement, in addition to the adjustments needed as a result of changes to the tax. Although technical in nature, the purpose of the amendments is clear, as I will now outline. The instrument changes two sets of regulations: the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013. The levy and safety net regulations set out how councils are protected from significant reductions in business rates income by the safety net, and how that protection is funded by a levy on business rates growth. The rates retention regulations cover the day-to-day operation of the system and set out the full process for allocating business rates income between billing authorities, major precepting authorities and central Government. To balance risk and reward over the multi-year settlement, we are introducing changes this year to both the safety net and the levy to ensure an appropriate balance of risk and reward within the business rates retention system against the backdrop of wider reform. We are increasing the safety net from 92.5% of baseline funding levels to 100% for 2026-27. That will provide authorities with improved certainty over their incomes for 2026-27 budgets as they know that they will receive their full baseline funding level—their assessed need to be provided via business rates income—offering stronger protection across the delivery of the reforms. The Government are introducing a new approach to the levy based on a marginal tax-style system, similar to the structure of income tax, that will apply to all local authorities. The approach balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. It will better support growth across the sector by applying a lower levy rate to early growth and a lower top rate than the current 50% levy faced by many authorities. The regulations also change the classification of grant compensation that local authorities are paid in lieu of business rates that they would otherwise have collected. These amounts will be treated comparably to business rates to streamline local government accounting under the business rates retention system. The reform programme has established new key values related to the business rates retention system, delivered through the recent settlement. Some of the values are used in safety net and levy calculations, which means we need to ensure that they are adjusted in the regulations to reflect their new values. As such, the instrument specifies new baseline funding levels and adjusted tariff and top-up values for local authorities. For most local authorities, the top-up or tariff figures set out by the settlement are the same values that we use to calculate their eligibility for the safety net or the requirement to pay the levy for a year. In such cases, we simply point to the settlement values. However, for authorities operating under 100% retention arrangements, we specify alternative top-up or tariff figures for the purposes of the levy and safety net. That ensures that councils operating at the standard 50% retention level do not bear additional costs that might arise in supporting authorities with 100% arrangements, should they require safety net payments. The top-up and tariff values for the coming year are interim figures that reflect the latest available data, but they will need to be updated next year once the final data is available. Another change stemming from the reform programme is the need to update formulae that have been replaced in the wider system. In the business rates retention system, we use factors representing the relative costs of operating in different areas, or area cost adjustments, to calculate a modest allowance of rates that each billing authority can retain to support its costs in administering business rates, otherwise known as a cost of collection allowance.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I am not quite sure that I caught all the details of the case that the hon. Member raised, but if he sends me them I will happily respond to him. He will know that we do not want children to be in B&B accommodation. That is one of the main planks of our strategy, which I will come to later. As has been mentioned, I wrote to local authority leaders and chief executives last month to remind them of their duties and to ask that they take personal responsibility for making sure that no child in their area is ever left to sleep on the street, in a car or in any other location not designed for living in. I am conscious of the case raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I am sure that he has made every effort to sort that out with Kirklees, but if he has further problems, or Kirklees has specific issues that it wants to raise with me, I trust that he will write to me directly. We must support councils to meet their obligations, and my Department has been in contact with the councils mentioned in the report to understand how this was able to happen and to ensure that it will not happen again. More broadly, hon. Members will be aware that we recently completed the local authority finance settlement for the next three years, reconnecting council funding with deprivation. That should aid the councils that are more likely to face these issues to deal with them. The Government are providing more than £2.4 billion this spending review period in support of the Families First Partnership programme, which is introducing reforms to children’s social care. It will ensure children and families can access timely support so that they can get ahead of this problem, as many Members have suggested. Local authorities should use that ringfenced funding to meet their duties under the Children Act. It has been great to speak to many Members and their local authority leaders about how they will do that. We are providing record levels of investment in homelessness and rough sleeping support, including more than £3.6 billion over the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a funding boost of more than £1 billion compared with the previous Government’s commitment, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for taking that decision. It is right that we are investing that much, because we inherited a homelessness crisis. Members have set out just how bad things have got. Our long-term vision is to end homelessness and rough sleeping and ensure everyone has access to a safe and decent home. The statistics that we have heard today show that, for far too many people, that is not yet the case. We published our national plan to end homelessness last December to shift the system from crisis response to prevention and to get back on track to ending homelessness. Our plan is backed by clear national targets to increase the proportion of households who are supported to stay in their own home or helped to find alternative accommodation when they approach their local council for support. That is the prevention goal, and it should underpin everything we do. For reasons that have been mentioned—not least the experience shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—we must prevent first. Homelessness is too big of a trauma; nobody should experience it. By the end of this Parliament, we want to eliminate the use of B&B accommodation for families, except in absolute, dire emergencies, and halve rough sleeping. Of course, we want everyone to have a roof over their head, but some of the problems that we are facing and the experiences of rough sleepers go deep, so we have to go to the toughest of problems. Our plan is backed by £3.6 billion of funding, including £2.2 billion that councils are free to use to design effective, locally tailored services to deliver better outcomes and reduce reliance on emergency interventions. A number of Members asked about ringfencing. There is tension between allowing local innovation, for which ringfences are unhelpful, and putting clear ringfences around funds to ensure that all councils can tackle homelessness. It is a balance, and that is the way we have taken the decision about the funding. Our plan sets out how we will tackle the root causes of homelessness by building 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing than has been built for years. We are also lifting 550,000 children out of poverty through the measures in our child poverty strategy, including by lifting the two-child limit. Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness. Our plan sets a long-term ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness, and we have cross-Government targets to start that change and reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals. A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), were kind enough to say that they believed in my will to get this done but expressed scepticism about other Departments. I hope I can reassure them that they do not need to be sceptical. My experience of working with Ministers in other Departments has been positive.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I was just going to respond to the shadow Minister. The interministerial group will meet quite soon, and we have been preparing for that. Our expert group of advisers met me yesterday, and we got a great deal of things done and discussed. I will come on to some of those, but I want to reassure Members that we have active participation in the interministerial group and across Government.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to come on to that. I will certainly commit to providing an update. It is beyond my procedural knowledge exactly what we are allowed to publish from ministerial groups, but I will certainly commit to providing an update. I was going to suggest that we might have a meeting with the APPG shortly after, so that we can provide an in-person update, because I think it would be far better for parliamentarians to be engaged in this process. I will quickly provide an update on the work of other Government Departments, in response to the questions raised. The Treasury is leading on the value for money review of homelessness support, which should pick up the precise point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley made on the cost of temporary accommodation. We have talked about the disaster this is for families, but what is going on at the moment is also a disaster for taxpayers. The Treasury is working with us and the DWP on that and is actively engaged. I am working extremely closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on incomes and the homelessness system overall, and it has been very active. With regard to the Ministry of Justice, the Minister for Prisons and I have been working very closely on people leaving prisons; he has exacting targets for reducing the number of people who leave prison to no fixed abode. I have also worked very closely with Home Office Ministers, and I will ensure that they receive a copy of the report of this debate, because I am sure Members want their opinions to be heard by them. On health, we need to ensure that neighbourhood health services support people who have experienced rough sleeping, particularly in relation to addiction and the trauma that children who have experienced homelessness might go through. On education, Members will know the disaster it is when children have to move schools because of temporary accommodation. The Department for Education has been working closely with us on that. I hope that reassures Members that this is a cross-Government effort. None the less, we will introduce a legal duty to collaborate, to compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness. As the shadow Minister pointed out, building more homes takes time, but our plan takes immediate action to tackle the worst forms of homelessness now. Alongside the work that the Minister for Housing and Planning is doing to bring forward much more social housing than we have seen in this country for a heck of a long time, we will increase the emergency accommodation reduction pilots into a programme backed by £30 million of funding to tackle a wider range of poor practice, including B&B and unsuitable out-of-area placements. As I mentioned, I met our expert group yesterday, and we intend to move very quickly on the toolkits that we need. Much of the information exists already; we just need to get on and do it. We are helping more vulnerable people off the streets and into stable housing by investing £150 million in supported housing services and £15 million in our long-term rough sleeping innovation programme, to help councils with the greatest pressures to deliver more personalised and comprehensive support for people with complex needs. I could talk about that for a long time, but I will not. Members here will understand that, sometimes, complicated personal circumstances sit behind someone’s homelessness, and we need really skilled caseworkers to support people with those. Likewise, we want to get on with the work on allocations, which is under way, and I am making sure it moves quickly. The latest data showed progress against two of our new targets. The percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved with accommodation secured for six or more months is up 3.7 percentage points year on year to 46%. That means a higher proportion of households at risk of homelessness or already homeless was helped to secure accommodation than over the same period the year before. That includes an increase in households helped to find accommodation before experiencing the traumatic experience of homelessness—that is the target that I really want to see go up. The quarter in question also saw a reduction in the number of families in B&B accommodation over the statutory limit of six weeks, to 1,670. That number is still far too many, but it is the lowest since the beginning of 2023 and down 55% year on year. I am confident that we are going in the right direction on B&B use, but we need to go faster and do more. The figures do not mean the job is done—far from it—but they show that prevention is improving and that fewer families are spending long periods in unsuitable accommodation. I have confidence that we can achieve the targets we have set ourselves, but we need to make sure that we maintain focus and, as Members have suggested, keep working right across Government to deliver. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree for securing this debate. As I said, our city is very proud of her. I hope we will never have cause to discuss families with children sleeping rough again, but I trust that Members here will secure other debates so that we can keep our focus on our homelessness strategy and make progress, as I have suggested, over the years to come.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. She has been dedicated to tackling homelessness for many years, including in her work as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. Rough sleeping and homelessness are issues that scarred our city region for many years, and I know that everybody at home is very proud of her and the work she does. As many hon. Members from a number of parties have mentioned, we do not want to be here talking about this issue, but it is so serious that we must. Like all hon. Members, I was extremely concerned about recent reports of families with children sleeping rough. To be absolutely clear, because there ought to be no ambiguity, this should never, ever happen. Let me say, for clarity, that a household with a child has a priority need for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. That means that if a household with a child is homeless and is eligible for homelessness assistance, the household must be provided with temporary accommodation until suitable settled accommodation is secured. Where households do not meet the criteria for homelessness assistance, local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, including by providing them with accommodation where necessary. Let me say, for absolute clarity, that that applies irrespective of the child’s immigration status. The law is absolutely clear that where a local authority believes that a household does not have a local connection to the district, it remains under a duty to accommodate until a referral to another district has been accepted. It is only when a referral has been accepted that the receiving authority must fulfil any duties to accommodate. There should never be any reason for families to be refused accommodation while there is a dispute about which authority owes that household a duty. There is no grey area here: families with children should never be left without accommodation.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  The interministerial group will meet regularly. There are interconnections between homelessness and violence against women and girls, because the third biggest cause of homelessness is people fleeing domestic abuse, so we will do some of what we need to do via our work as Ministers through the violence against women and girls strategy. As a number of Members have highlighted, there is clearly a connection between homelessness and poverty. We are about to take forward the delivery of the child poverty strategy, so some aspects of what we are considering will be taken forward through that discussion among Ministers. I am very conscious that we should have meetings not for the sake of it, but to get things done. We will deliver our objectives through those three interconnected strategies, and Ministers will certainly meet regularly.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman; that is exactly the point that I am making. I am very conscious that I have spoken to many council leaders and finance officers in recent weeks who have experienced significant cost pressures in areas where we are in quite an uncertain policy environment. The right response to that is to work with the Department for Education, particularly on children’s costs, and others, to get the policy in the right place so that we can get those costs down.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  There are! And there are some people who identify as Birkenhead and many people who, as I do, think of themselves as Wirralian. These issues of identity are complicated. We need to take account of them and listen to what residents tell us, but my experience is that there is never one right answer. Across England, the programme is progressing quickly. Proposals have been submitted and consultations undertaken, and the first decisions are now being implemented. The south-east is at the forefront of this work. It is home to cities such as Brighton, Southampton, Oxford and Portsmouth, which have a vital role to play not only in their local economies, but in our national growth story. I turn first to Surrey, the most advanced area. Parliament has considered the order to establish two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, with elections taking place this May and new councils formally assuming responsibilities in April 2027. Alongside structural reform, we have committed unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking borough council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. A couple of Members with Surrey constituencies rightly pointed out the consequences for other Surrey residents; I agree that there are consequences for all citizens in the UK when that sort of thing happens. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about financial sustainability. We are keeping that closely under review as we move forward with this process. The support that we have agreed is a first tranche, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point. A number of Members asked about modelling. In this process, it is for councils to bring forward their analysis of costs and benefits to make the case under the criteria. I add one word of caution: we have all discussed the situation with spiking demand in particular areas of cost. I am working with other Government Departments on that; as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said, local government is a complex mix when it comes to central Government policy. I spent three years on the Treasury Committee poring over the modelling on Brexit and other matters. It is not a precise science, as Members who have experienced Government know only too well.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  When my own area in Merseyside started off on the journey to get a mayor, it was really unclear how to build the right resources; the time it took to do that should not be underestimated. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities started 20 years before the city had a mayor. The right way is to get the foundation strong first: get the unitary authorities in place and then move forward from there. I know that the hon. Lady will have more conversations with my hon. Friend the Devolution Minister, who will talk to her about the specific process for Surrey. It is important to me, as Minister for Local Government, to get the foundations strong so that we can build devolution up in that way. I recognise that Members have raised a number of specific concerns about the implications of reform in their own areas, and those concerns matter. They are being carefully considered. Whether the issue is financial sustainability, which we have discussed, local identity, which I went on about again, or the impact of potential boundary changes, decisions will be taken carefully, transparently and in the interests of residents. Although they are out of scope of our reorganisation programme, town and parish councils will continue to play an important role in representing their communities. New unitary authorities will also be expected to develop strong, local, area-based working, so that decision making remains close to the communities that it affects. As we look ahead, the next steps are clear: the Government will move forward with decisions and continue working with councils across the region to ensure that change is delivered smoothly and responsibly. In conclusion, local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for the south-east: an opportunity to give local areas the capacity to grow, build the homes their communities need and see better public services; an opportunity to replace complex and outdated structures with councils that are simpler, stronger and more accountable; and an opportunity to ensure that local government is fit for the future. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath again for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House and with local partners to make changes that will benefit communities right across the south-east.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing today’s debate on local government reorganisation in the south-east. It is a very important issue for residents and businesses across the region and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress that is being made and the opportunity that change presents. Local government reorganisation is an opportunity to modernise how councils operate. For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate cost and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which service. I note the various contributions that have been made on that point. I think we would all agree that councils can always do better to help residents engage with them, but there is no doubt that there is evidence out there that the two-tier system does seem to add to confusion and a lack of accountability. Decisions to build and grow our towns and cities can take longer, with resources spread more thinly. We need clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. By moving to single unitary authorities we can create councils with the scale, leadership and authority to grow their economies, create jobs and opportunities, and deliver for communities, particularly in the services where pressure is greatest, including children’s services, adult social care and housing. Those areas were mentioned by a number of Members; I appreciate the contributions that they made. I just want to make one point on identity, because I am sure we will debate the finances of the situation. As he often does, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) raised the very serious situation that that council has been through, but identity is also important. I hope Members will forgive me if they have heard me say this before, but before I was born, my own area was in a two-tier system, with Birkenhead and Cheshire as a two-tier council area. In 1974, before I was born, we became the Wirral in Merseyside. Now, we are the Wirral in Liverpool city region. Those different identities are complex and interconnected. There are some people I represent who would say that they are still Cheshire all these years later.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about reorganisation costs; I will think about whether I can say more to him in writing about that—otherwise we will just go over this forever. I now turn to the really important point made by the hon. Member for Woking. I probably cannot respond in this context to his specific question about honours, but I will take it away. I have immense sympathy with the points he raised, but I am conscious that investigations are ongoing. I will leave it there, but he was correct to make his case. The removal of the Audit Commission—and what happened to local audit under the Government from 2010 to 2015—was in my view an absolute disaster. We will put it right with the reintroduction of local audit and much greater constraints on the sort of behaviours we have seen not only in Woking, but elsewhere. I will leave that there, too, but I could go on about it for hours. I turn to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Government have received a number of proposals and representations from councils. Across those areas, different authorities have put forward different visions for the future, some favouring multiple new unitary authorities while others, such as the Isle of Wight, have been clear in their preference to remain stand-alone. Those views, alongside the evidence submitted by other councils and stakeholders, will be assessed carefully against the criteria of sustainability, geography and public engagement. I turn briefly to Sussex. Proposals for reorganisation have been received and the consultation has now closed. The Government are considering all the evidence submitted and will take decisions guided by the statutory criteria and what will best support effective and sustainable local government. I turn to Oxfordshire. The Government have now launched a statutory consultation on proposals for unitary reform across the country, which closes this month. A range of options have been proposed, including a single county-wide authority, a two-unitary model and a three-unitary configuration, including a Greater Oxford council. At this point, I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specifics, but he asked for a meeting on finance with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), which I am very happy to arrange. Oxford is a vital cog in helping to grow our national economy, but that is exactly why the consultation and the process are so important. Decisions must be informed not only by structural and economic arguments made by local councils but by the views of residents, businesses and communities themselves. Across all areas undergoing reform, the Government’s priority is that change must not come at the expense of vital decisions to keep building homes and delivering frontline services. We are also providing practical support to councils delivering reorganisation to help with this capacity, including up to £63 million nationally to help manage implementation pressures alongside expert advice from across the sector and the Local Government Association. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) about parish councils being responsible for their own services and so on. If she has particular concerns about that, I will welcome a note from her. Reorganisation also sits alongside wider action to place local government on a stronger financial footing. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which has been welcomed by Members from across the House because it provides councils with greater certainty and ensures that funding better reflects needs and deprivations. We should remember that the benefits of strong unitary councils are not theoretical. For example, where they already exist, we are seeing results. In South Yorkshire, four unitary councils working with the mayor are helping places such as Barnsley and Doncaster not only to grow their local economies but to translate that into higher wages for local people. South Yorkshire is one of the places that has suffered worst with unemployment in our country’s history, but it is now making serious and significant progress. That is the real economic growth that improves living standards. Newer unitary councils such as those in Buckinghamshire and North Yorkshire are delivering millions of pounds of efficiencies through streamlined structures that have reduced duplications, delivering savings that will be reinvested in frontline priorities such as supporting vulnerable children and funding local transport. The hon. Member for Woking made his point about vulnerable children very well; I will alert the Minister with responsibility for children’s care to his comments so that he can get a response.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on introducing the debate and thank all Members who have participated in it. First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents. We cannot imagine what they have been through, and I find their bravery to seek support from their Member of Parliament, meet with Ministers and try to make a difference for other families inspiring. Through my hon. Friend, I thank them wholeheartedly, as I do all those around the country who have experienced some of the horrendous things that Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and others—have discussed this afternoon for doing likewise. The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult things to go through in life. We will all experience it at some point, and I know that, in our hearts, we would all want to make sure that our loved ones are kept safe and treated with dignity after death, wherever and however they are cared for. Hon. Members will be aware that the independent Fuller inquiry published its phase 2 report in July. That report was unequivocal. It found serious weaknesses and inconsistencies across settings—not isolated failure, but systematic gaps in how we protect the dignity of our loved ones. The inquiry chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, said: “My overall conclusion is that the current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking.” That is a challenging statement for us all to hear and read. The report makes 75 recommendations, including the introduction of statutory regulation for all settings that care for the deceased. I want to be really clear on this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is leading the Government’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned several Departments that are involved. I reassure him and other Members that the Ministers who, collectively, are involved have discussed this issue, and we will continue to do so because it is extremely important. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has taken an interest in this matter. It sounds as though she has supported the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, and I am glad about that. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care published an interim update on 16 December 2025. He has already accepted 11 recommendations in full and a further 43 in principle, subject to further work. That leaves 21 that the Government are still considering, including those on regulation of the sector. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in full by the summer. On regulation, we need to strike the right balance between boosting public assurance, for all the reasons that Members have mentioned, and getting it right for the more than 6,500 funeral providers, many of which are small family firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley explained very clearly that many of them take great pride in their work and do it extremely carefully. The vast majority of funeral directors provide compassionate, professional care for our loved ones, and 85% of providers are already members of a trade body offering guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection. The Government will think through the options very carefully. This is a sensitive and meaningful area of public life; when things go wrong, the harm is profound and long-lasting. At this point, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He pointed out the importance of including all of our faith communities in this work, which is extremely important to all of us. In December, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), informed the House that he is “working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners” —[ Official Report , 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 59WS.] to examine how “robust and consistent standards” can be applied across all settings. I am sure that part of that work will consider the possible role that local authorities will play in the future. As the Minister for Local Government, I am a huge supporter of local authorities. They deliver essential services up and down the country every day. Their hard-working staff do a brilliant job serving their communities, often in very difficult circumstances. They are independent of Government, directly elected by their communities, and they often take difficult decisions every single day. In relation to this issue, councils are only too aware that they do not have powers of inspection or the power to enter funeral premises. If the Government decide that that is the right approach, we will need to consider how to make that work. We are not automatically assuming that role for councils or environmental health officers, but we need to do the work to understand, if that is the route, how we would make it work. I do not want to pre-empt consideration of that; the work is ongoing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked me about the feedback from the work that was undertaken previously. The MHCLG had a roundtable with the LGA in January to discuss the issue that he mentioned, and the information from the work that he described was fed back into the MOJ. That just shows the importance of working across the ministerial team, which I can assure everybody we will do. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has promised a response to all to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer. I will ask the Health Minister to meet the APPG, because he will know better the right moment to do that, given the forthcoming response. Between now and then, the Government will carefully consider the potential regulation. That work is under way and we will see the results this summer. The issues raised by the Fuller inquiry demand a response that is serious and, most importantly, grounded in dignity. The Department of Health and Social Care is leading that response on behalf of the Government. I will work very closely with my colleagues in that Department, the Ministry of Justice, the DBT and any others with responsibility to make sure that we take those recommendations in the serious way that they deserve, given the subject matter. We want to make sure that the care of the deceased is treated with the seriousness, respect and humanity it deserves. I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley for the work that he has done to ensure that this issue is progressed. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England. I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas. On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.” I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both. In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services. This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Let me try again: Rayleigh. I got it right that time.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford. In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government. Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era. Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods. The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition. However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable. Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used. Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources. Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House. Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services. Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The draft order was laid before the House on 14 January and, if approved by this House and the other place, will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge borough council, Mole Valley district council and Surrey county council for two new unitary councils—East Surrey council and West Surrey council—on a geography covering the entirety of the county of Surrey. As I have said in the House before, we need to set local authorities on a clear path to financial sustainability. Local government reorganisation is a vital part of that journey. Having layers of councils is both ineffective and inefficient. Reorganisation is not a bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map. With one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and reconnect people to opportunity. Residents will see more preventive care and will benefit from more financially stable councils, with combined services delivering for a larger population providing efficiencies and better value. That is why reorganisation—with stronger local councils equipped to generate economic growth, improve public services and empower communities—is a vital part of our change. I thank colleagues in this place and councils across the country for working with the Government on this process. To this end, on 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government, including Surrey, were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation. Two proposals for reorganisation in Surrey were taken to consultation: one for two unitary councils and one for three. Following the close of the consultation, on 28 October 2025 I announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two-unitaries proposal. In reaching that decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believed that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services residents rely on, as well as to investing in their futures. If Parliament approves the draft order, there will be two unitary councils for Surrey from 1 April 2027. To deliver the new unitary councils, the order requires elections to be held in May 2026 for the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. The elections will be on the basis of East Surrey having 36 two-member wards and West Surrey having 45 two-member wards. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the wards in time for the 2031 elections. Implementing this proposal and establishing these new unitary authorities will help deliver our vision of having stronger local councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers, to improve local public services and help grow economies. Before I outline the content of the draft order, I want to bring attention to related issues in Surrey: the level of unsupported debt in Woking, and devolution for Surrey. The Government recognise that Woking borough council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historical capital practices at the council and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt and ensure value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are committed to providing the new unitary with interim financial support, such as capitalisation support, until this process is complete. On devolution for Surrey, there is a plan that we are taking forward. On 12 February, we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England as the next step forward in the Government’s devolution agenda. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority for the area. This will ensure that relevant functions held at the county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint where possible. We have also proposed that a spatial development strategy should be produced for the Surrey geography, which would be a function held by the foundation strategic authority. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests being met, and to local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography. We prepared the draft order having considered the information in the proposals and the representations invited from all the councils concerned on specific matters. The order provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, the functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities, East Surrey council and West Surrey council. The draft order also covers electoral matters, which I have set out, and provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. On transitional arrangements, it places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other, the shadow authorities and the shadow executives, and to create joint committees for East Surrey and West Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  As you might expect, Sir Roger, I entirely agree with your suggestion, and I would be very happy to do so.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is very important. Dealing with the significant debt that local authorities have built up for a range of reasons is extremely important. He will be aware that we have dealt with the special educational needs and disabilities issue in recent days. He raises his point in the context of reorganisation, and those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that we get this issue right, and I look forward to discussing with him the details of the case he mentioned on many occasions, I am sure, as we move forward with Lancashire reorganisation. I am pleased that Surrey leaders, members and officers have already commenced and implemented on a voluntary basis some of the transitional arrangements in the draft order to support delivery of the two new unitary councils. As such, the required joint committees have been set up and the implementation team agreed, and work is under way on the required implementation plan. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved in this process for their continued hard work and collaboration for local government reorganisation in Surrey. I know that this is not easy, and I reiterate my commitment to continue to support councils through the process. As part of that, we have confirmed £63 million in new funding for all 21 areas going through reorganisation, including Surrey, to help make the change. In conclusion, through the draft order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality public services to residents. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I can, if my hon. Friend really wants to intervene. [ Laughter. ]