Lewis Cocking MP: speeches

Well, the Government have had two years—that will not wash with my constituents, who have seen thousands of new homes built with no new infrastructure. Healthcare services are of particular concern: when there is new housing, that makes it much harder for everyone to see their GP. This Government are taking on more political control of the NHS, so can the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care about ensuring that new healthcare facilities are in place when there is new housing?

My constituents and people across this country are fed up with more and more housing being built without the proper infrastructure in place first. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 about forcing developers to put schools and GP surgeries in place at the same time as new developments. Will the Minister look again and commit to listening to existing residents about bringing changes in legislation, to ensure that there is infrastructure first?

Lots of difficult decisions had to be made. I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is in government now. We will see the mettle that they are made of in the coming months, when they have to make difficult decisions to produce their Budget, and we will also see how that goes down with the British people outside this place. Many rural councils face real challenges across the board, and now they are expected to cope with even fewer resources. In my area of Hertfordshire, a semi-rural local authority, the county council is facing a reduction in funding of around £50 million a year. That is thanks to this Labour Government, despite the council already being under extreme pressure from an unfavourable SEND funding formula. Under that formula, Hertfordshire receives one of the lowest funding allocations per head. It would receive millions more if it were funded at the same rate as other areas. When it comes to SEND, rural authorities lose out. Inner London boroughs receive thousands of pounds more in high needs block funding per pupil. For example, a child in Camden is allocated four times as much as a child in Yorkshire. It should not matter where someone is born in the country; children with special educational needs deserve the same resources. I am sure that all hon. Members from right across this House can agree with that. Similarly, rural authorities have been ignored throughout this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation. As we have seen in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and other areas, rural towns and villages are now being absorbed into new unitary authorities dominated by cities. That will only result in rural areas being more marginalised and left even further behind.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and I welcome the Minister back to his place. I commend the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to speak about the rural areas that this Labour Government are neglecting. My constituency is home to a handful of farms and the beautiful Lee Valley regional park. Although it might not be the most rural, I am well aware of the pressures faced by rural communities, which have been made clear by hon. Members across the Chamber today. Having started off with the infamous family farm tax, the Government are now moving on to implement the unfair funding review. This change in the funding formula for local government seems to have been designed with the express purpose of stripping away funding from rural areas just to hand it to urban ones.

I thought someone might make that point in this debate. I have been in debates where no Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs have turned up. When I go out and speak to my constituents about how, when they turn on the TV, the Chamber is not full, I explain to them that there are many calls upon Members’ time. I gently say to the hon. Member that some constituents will watch debates that he does not attend and be unhappy with that, so we could maybe think about that before we make interventions on that topic. As I was saying, this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation has seen rural communities left behind. Rural communities and authorities have also been hugely hit with a high increase in housing targets, forcing them to build over the green belt and ruin the character of their areas. They have increased by up to 487%, while many Labour-run urban areas have seen their targets decrease. The new Prime Minister likes to talk about devolving power to every postcode, but the only changes that people in rural areas have seen are money and power being taken away from them. They are the people that this Labour Government should champion: the hard-working people who have too often been left behind. Instead, they are being sidelined and ignored. The Government need to take time to actually listen to the rural community and protect their way of life. I may not represent a very rural part of this country, unlike other hon. Members in this room, who have so passionately spoken about their rural areas, but it does not take much to work out that forced local government reorganisation, increases in taxes and reduced funding formulas are the exact opposite of how the Government should support rural local authorities.

The Prime Minister has spent all summer trying to be all things to all people. My constituents in Broxbourne want the Government to cut wasteful spending, lower taxes and get a grip on our immigration system, which all require tough decisions to be made by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister choose his left-wing Back Benchers or will he choose the British people?

What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents in Broxbourne, who never asked for this reorganisation and are concerned that it is just a waste of time and money that will leave them with higher council tax bills and less say over local planning decisions?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a huge privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this very important debate. I welcome the Minister to her place; this will be the first time we have had an exchange in this place. As hon. Members will know, I do not represent a coastal community. The River Lea and the white water rafting centre that proudly hosted events for the 2012 Olympics are the closest my constituency comes to having a coastline. However, many of my constituents grew up visiting our coasts, and have warm memories and strong cultural attachments to the beaches, clifftops and seaside towns of our great island nation. I fondly remember trips to places such as Clacton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth and Southend. From my visits to many of our seaside towns, and from hearing hon. Members’ testimonies, it is apparent that those places face unique challenges. Unfortunately, many of them have experienced decline in recent decades. The challenges that they face are not always adequately acknowledged or addressed by central Government. Understandably, many feel as if they are overlooked time and again. Many Members have made eloquent cases about that, providing us with valuable insights from the people they speak to and from their own experiences, but I will touch on some of those challenges again. They include poor or sometimes non-existent transport links, unemployment and changes to a once-reliable and profitable seasonal trade, a lack of housing supply, and large disparities in income, which mean that many people cannot afford to live in the places where they grew up. That is made even worse by the conversion of former hotels, B&Bs and residential properties into houses in multiple occupation, with councils and Government Departments using them to house people from elsewhere, leading to transient and unstable communities. Another challenge is an education system that receives far less money per pupil than some inner-city areas of London, for example. Unfortunately, decisions made by this Labour Government have worsened and compounded many of those issues. Businesses such as hotels, ice cream parlours and fisheries have been hit hard by the increase the employer national insurance and by burdensome regulations. Business rates have increased—in some cases massively and seemingly arbitrarily. Many people I meet in the hospitality industry, which is vital to coastal communities, tell me that they are really struggling; they simply have no more to give, and they ask why they should even bother. The Minister’s Department is now pushing through local government reorganisation, which in some areas will lump coastal communities together with inland towns and villages that have completely different priorities and challenges, and risks marginalising coastal communities even further. I urge the Government to pay particular attention to that when making decisions on local government reorganisation. Ultimately, our coastal communities and the whole United Kingdom deserve better. We need a Government who cut rather than increase taxes, reward rather than punish aspiration and success, prioritise quality housing for local people rather than HMOs for illegal asylum seekers, and put the interests of ordinary British people first, not least those in our coastal communities.

The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic, and she knows that I am focused on securing the best outcome for my constituents. We know that reorganisation in Hertfordshire is coming, but the uncertainty is not helping my residents or local councillors, so can the Minister confirm whether an option for Hertfordshire will be included in her announcement on Thursday? Can she also confirm whether MPs will be informed before any public announcement is made?

We must reduce immigration to this country and get a grip of our asylum system. Unlike the MPs behind her, I do think the Home Secretary is starting to move in the right direction. But, as she will know, small boat crossings are on the rise since Labour came to power, with an average of 105 illegal migrants crossing the channel every single day for the last two years. Almost 100,000 people are being housed in asylum accommodation, with the numbers in houses in multiple occupation up 11% under this Labour Government. The case for urgent action is now overwhelming, but the measures in the Bill before us fail to meet the gravity of the situation. I will therefore be supporting the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Just look at the tinkering to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We all know that the protection to family life has been abused and twisted far from its original purpose. The public rightly expect foreign nationals who have broken our laws to be deported. The rights of the British people should always outweigh the interests of foreign criminals—no ifs, no buts. In 2023, a Nigerian man used article 8 to stay in this country despite a two-year prison sentence, but the tribunal ruled that deportation would breach his article 8 rights. Horrifically, he then went on to violently rape a teenage girl—whose rights were being protected then? Will these sorts of cases be a thing of the past as a result of the modest changes within this Bill? I am not convinced. The Government are allowing vague and ambiguous exceptional circumstances to be used by criminals to avoid deportation. The phrasing in the Bill leaves far too much room for legal argument, appeals and delays. No ifs, no buts—every illegal immigrant should be deported. By making changes to article 8, the Government have conceded that membership of the European convention on human rights places significant limits on the UK’s ability to maintain and control our borders. There is only one logical conclusion: the only way that we will truly end illegal immigration into the United Kingdom, deport all foreign criminals, and create a system that is genuinely fair and robust, is to leave the European convention on human rights in its entirety, and repeal the Human Rights Act.

The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?

I commend the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate, and for her continued strong and effective leadership of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I have spoken several times in this House about the problems with the current leasehold and property management system, more recently from the Opposition Front Bench. Like so many of my constituents and people across the country, I am a leaseholder and I know at first hand the horrific situation they face. However, in today’s debate I would like to focus on property management companies, which are bringing misery to the lives of both leaseholders and those living on freehold estates in so-called fleecehold properties. Apart from the law as it currently stands, it is the poor performance and, quite frankly, the total incompetence of companies such as the Residential Management Group and FirstPort that are at the root of so many of the issues facing leaseholders across the country. Since my election, I have not come across one property management company that residents are happy with. Whether it is High Leigh in Hoddesdon, Academia Avenue, Robinia Road and Watery Lane in Turnford, Aldermere Avenue and Magnolia Way in Flamstead End, or Eleanor House in Waltham Cross, it is hard to think of one part of Broxbourne that is not affected. The Minister, with whom I get on well, has promised to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, but how much longer will my constituents have to wait? His Department has already held a consultation on measures to help leaseholders challenge unfair fees and charges, and introduce qualifications for managing agents. In fact, the consultation opened nearly one year ago and closed in September 2025, and the Government are still analysing the feedback. That is what the people out there get fed up with. The Leasehold and Freehold Act 2024 is on the statute book and the present Government clearly want stronger regulation of managing agents, as that is what they have told this House, so why the delay? We need to get this sorted. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and allowed my Committee to scrutinise it in its draft form. That is a positive sign that the Government want to get the right legislation in place for our constituents, but I feel they should commit to giving more powers to the Department, so that Ministers can hold managing agents to account, specifically with enforcement powers. Managing agents that break the rules should be fined, and ultimately stripped of their licence to operate. This means that management companies would have to start to care about the interests of the residents they are supposed to look out for. In my constituency of Broxbourne, we have had to put up with poor service charges and increasing bills for years. Residents have nowhere to turn when something goes wrong. They feel that managing agents have all the power. I know the Minister wants to change that, and I hope he will reflect carefully on what has been said across the House. I urge the Government to get a move on, and solve this issue for millions of people across the United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that he remains in post or gets a promotion in the upcoming reshuffle. I did not plan to speak today but, although I have heard some good points made in this Committee, I have also heard some nonsense. This is a terrible idea: I do not think a national scheme of delegation will work across the country. It puts too much power in the hands of planning officers, who do not always get it right. We often fail to talk about how we have to create communities, but when someone makes a bad planning decision, that building is there for generations. There are issues that should be thought about within the planning process, and they will be difficult to solve if an officer has recommended the approval or refusal of a specific application and they have got it wrong. Officers are less likely to live within the council area, so they are less likely to know the place as well as councillors. Councillors should be around that table and should be able to call in planning applications. Lots of councils do have a scheme of delegation, but it is important that they retain flexibility, because there will be certain applications where local circumstances apply. For example, an application for a house may have to be called in because there are specific issues down a road, or because lots of people have replied to the consultation. Councils need to have that flexibility. The national scheme of delegation will not help the Government in meeting their target of building 1.5 million homes. This is not the problem within the planning system. As I have said before, the reason that hardly any homes are getting built in this country is developers themselves. Most applications that go through the planning process get approved. It takes such a long time for developers to get their planning application not because the approval process is slow, but because they actively go against what the council is seeking to achieve within its local plan or what local people want. If, when they originally bought the piece of land and wanted to create their development, they came around the table and worked hand in hand with the council, they would get through that process a lot quicker. As leader of Broxbourne council, I had loads of experience of dealing with developers who would take ages to get through the planning system because they would not do what the council asked them to. The idea that this legislation will speed up the planning process and solve all the issues, and then 1.5 million homes will be built over the course of this Parliament, is just utter nonsense. This is not the right part of the process for the Government to be attacking. This is an incredibly bad idea. It is not well thought-out. It will create issues down the line, when officers approve lots of planning applications and people do not understand why they have been approved, and it will cause fundamental issues for parking, healthcare facilities and education that will have no democratic oversight. I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and try to improve the planning system, because I do not think this piece of legislation does that. It is an attack on democracy, and it is all about concreting over the green belt.

The Minister is being very generous with his time. How can the public deal with planning officers who get it wrong? At the moment, if a planning committee gets it wrong, the public can go out to the ballot box and vote for someone else. They cannot do that with planning officers who make the wrong decisions.

The Minister mentions local plans and schemes of delegation. If a developer comes forward with a planning application that is not allocated within the local plan, how will that be dealt with? Will it be deal with through schemes of delegation, or would it automatically go to committee?

When I was leader of my council, I went to a number of meetings in my constituency and spoke to a number of constituents. Experts on transport come to meetings and say that everyone should walk everywhere, which is completely impractical. Some of the solutions that the Government have put forward are completely unworkable. They should come up with some common-sense solutions, because this is a serious problem that we need to deal with. Saying that most people should walk everywhere is not a serious solution to the problem that we face. If the Government want us to reduce our carbon emissions even more, they should come up with serious, practical, common-sense solutions that allow us to take the British people with us and protect jobs in this country. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, there is no point putting taxes on business here and cutting carbon here if factories then open in China, where they use coal to produce their electricity rather than what we do in the United Kingdom. That is completely unserious. The Government need to come up with practical solutions to this problem, and I urge the Minister to do so.

Before entering this place, I worked in the energy efficiency industry. I know the potential that we have when we back our home-grown manufacturers across the United Kingdom, and I know how vital energy is to their success; but the Government’s policies on net zero are holding them back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) said during Prime Minister’s questions, the current Energy Secretary is “putting up bills and killing jobs.” I am proud that under her leadership, the Conservative Party is starting to be honest about net zero. As the Conservative leader of Broxbourne Council, I never joined in the hysteria of council after council declaring a climate emergency, then sitting back and feeling good about themselves. In Broxbourne we focused on action, not words—planting thousands of trees, installing electric car charging points, and getting developers to put solar panels on new houses. Putting net zero into law by 2050 was exactly the same: there was no serious plan to achieve it then, but now Labour have come up with a plan, and we are starting to see what the true costs to our economy and to ordinary people’s lives will be. Carbon budget 7 sets a target for reducing our emissions by 87%. According to the Climate Change Committee, to achieve that we must cut meat consumption by a quarter by 2040, and sheep and cattle numbers will have to fall by 38% by 2050. Some of these suggestions are completely unworkable. The Climate Change Committee has also said that people should be pushed away from driving to “alternative modes of travel”. That is simply not feasible in large parts of the United Kingdom, especially rural areas like parts of my constituency. It is very frustrating to turn up at a local meeting about sustainable transport—about trying to increase the number of buses and trains—and then find that the person who is lecturing everyone about how we should all walk everywhere has driven there in their car. We need to come up with practical solutions that enable us to take the public with us. What do I say to my constituents who tell me, “I have to take two kids to school, and they are at different schools, then I have to go to work and do the shopping, then pick them up and go home”? Such targets are unworkable. It is not feasible to say, “Well, that’s fine—everyone can just walk everywhere.” The targets have to be sensible, and we have to take the British public with us, or we will not go anywhere towards achieving some of the stuff that the Government want us to achieve. We are talking about an average overall cost of £11,157 per household. That is not a price that we should be willing to pay. We have made fantastic progress already, and we should always be committed to leaving a better environment for the next generation, but we also need to leave them a stronger economy and a stronger country, and that means, above all else, cheaper energy. Britain currently has some of the highest energy costs in the developed world. There is no way in which we can achieve the economic growth that people are crying out for throughout the United Kingdom if that remains the case, which is why we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of North sea oil. According to this Government, it is okay to get oil from Russia if it is done through a third country, but we cannot use our own resources in the North sea. Obviously, oil coming from the North sea will produce less carbon dioxide than oil that has had to travel halfway across the world. The Government need to set out a plan for delivery, and they really need to come up with common-sense approaches to deal with the impacts of climate change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said, the fact that we are scrutinising Government policy does not make us climate deniers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The Government are bringing forward logical proposals to deal with new councils, but my concern is that I am not sure that this measure goes far enough. It talks about protecting new councils from existing councils’ decisions about their finances, but what we do not talk about in this—and what I think the Government need to consider—are existing councils that are going to be forced to merge. That is important because, if we look at my constituency, I have a council with money in the bank and a council without money in the bank. This legislation talks about protecting the new authority from financial decisions that the existing authorities have made—I completely support that, and I think the Government are taking a logical approach—but we need to explore whether it is fair for all the money to go into the same pot. Is it fair for people who have had good councils, with money in the bank, to see their taxpayers’ money spent elsewhere in the authority, where they will not see a benefit? We should explore what financial information, constraints or regulations we can give to new councils when they are created, rather than just putting all the money into the pot. The councils to be merged will not have the same financial footing. They will not have the same services or the same money in the bank. If we think that it is important to protect the new council from decisions that the existing authority has made, it is right that we look at protecting specific areas within new councils that have had good financial management over the short to medium term. As I said, there is an example in my constituency: Broxbourne council has about £50 million in the bank but East Herts council has none. What I do not want to see if we have to go through local government reorganisation is all that money going into the pot and then being spent on paying someone else’s debt. It is right for constituents that I represent in the borough of Broxbourne to say that there should be some guidance outlining that that money should at least be spent within the existing boundaries of that authority, even if it is under the new council.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Vickers. This is an important piece of legislation that the Government are bringing forward. I wonder whether the Minister could explore some of the points that I have raised in this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like millions of people across the country, I am a leaseholder. We have been waiting nearly two years since the Government promised to improve the system. While the Government dither, leaseholders are being ripped off with higher service charges from companies such as FirstPort. We need action, not words, to take on these bad companies. Every MP in this House is aware of the situation, so can the Minister tell me why the leasehold Bill does nothing to hold management companies to account?

The Minister should also consider the impact of the conveyancing process on this important issue. I have heard many complaints from older people in my constituency about the lack of transparency from solicitors, with families then hit with huge fees at the worst possible time. I am sure if people knew what they were signing up for lots of these properties would never be sold. Will the Minister commit to going further than the older people’s housing taskforce report and look closely at the entire conveyancing process?

I thank the hon. Member for supporting the point I was making. The Elizabeth line was a new line with new trains going along it, but currently, planning applications are submitted and the response is: “This development is next to a railway station. We will grant the planning permission.” There are no new services. There are no extra trains. The only consequences for the line are the thousands of houses that are built near it. If my constituency were served by HS2 or we were getting a new train, that would be a completely different matter, but when capacity is being added to existing services and when that planning process is taking place, there is nothing to say that there must be more trains and a more frequent service, and the trains have to be longer during the rush hour to deal with the extra housing. We need to look at how communication with rail users can be improved and at how this nationalised rail service will work, because, as I have said, the service in my area was one of the first to be nationalised and my constituents have seen no benefit at all.

Broxbourne is an important commuter area when travelling into London. Millions of journeys start and end at stations in my constituency every year, and more than double the national average number of people use the railway to get to work. The line that I and my constituents rely on—Greater Anglia—was one of the first to be taken over by the Government, and not a week goes by without some sort of incident causing long delays and cancellations. We have not seen any improvements from nationalisation. While I do not support nationalisation in principle, I agree that the railway needs to work better for passengers and the communities it serves and in which it operates. It is in that spirit that I will address a number of amendments. I support new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It would place a duty on GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years. The rail network should be easily accessible for everyone, as most Members have said. There has been lots of progress in recent years on this issue, and I am pleased that most stations in my constituency are fully accessible, but that still leaves some stations that see hundreds of thousands of journeys each year out of reach for constituents with disabilities or using buggies. Rye House is the only train station in Hoddesdon, a town of 20,000 people, but only one platform is step-free—the other is not. That means someone can have step-free access going into London, but not when they leave to go home. That means passengers in a wheelchair or with buggies having to get off at a different station, with longer journeys to get home. It gets even worse at Theobalds Grove station, where the situation is even more difficult. No platform has step-free access, so there is no option for those with disabilities, such as those in a wheelchair, or families with buggies to use that station at all. Both stations would be ideal candidates for accessibility improvements, which should be a key priority for Great British Rail. Since my election, I have campaigned hard on traffic delays and roadworks, and they do not occur in isolation from other modes of transport, particularly the rail network. I support new clause 29, which would direct Great British Rail to co-ordinate with transport authorities to minimise disruption. We need a joined-up and a common-sense approach. When works are planned on a line, we do not also need utility companies coming along to dig up the high street. It seems that once one element causes a bit of disruption, the other goes out of its way to create more disruption at the same time. We need organisations to have a joined-up and common-sense approach. Level crossings can have massive knock-on effects for my constituents, particularly those who live in the villages. In my constituency, a track runs through the villages of Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets—right through the middle. If the crossing is down for too long or a defect causes it not to reopen, an entire village is cut off from basic services. The level-crossings strategy proposed in amendment 65 would enable us to look at the consequences of things going wrong in that way, which would hopefully reduce disruption for my constituents. In the case of any public body, value for the taxpayer should be considered above all else, so I support the requirement for Great British Railways to take steps to keep costs as low as possible. Rail services should also respond to changing needs. We have seen thousands of homes built in the last few years, creating more strain on our rail services. Thousands have been built near Cheshunt, the busiest station in my constituency, and more passengers are using it now than before the pandemic. New clause 40 would ensure that services respond to population changes. Within the national planning policy framework, the Government are trying to bulldoze our green belt and make it easier to obtain planning permission near stations. I fundamentally disagree with that, and it makes new clause 40 even more important. The Government should support it. New clause 37 is intended to ensure that the trains on which local communities rely run more frequently. The standard of communication from the railway network, the rail companies and my nationalised local rail service is appalling. If people turn up at the station and there are problems on the line, there are no staff around to talk to. No one is communicating with the passengers. They are left at the station to wait for another service, if and when it turns up.

I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?

Will the Minister give way?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your election to this House, which happened a few days ago? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. For the past few months, I have worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that their hard work paid off: they were elected on to Broxbourne district council and it remained under Conservative control, with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents, and not one person said to me that they wanted to see Broxbourne council abolished. If they were aware of the Government’s plans to do just that and force us into a large unitary authority stretching 40 miles from top to bottom, they wanted to know what I was doing to stop it. I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, we will be told that local councils were knocking down the door of MHCLG, saying, “We want to reorganise. We want to go into large unitary councils.” Well, I have seen the letter that the Government sent to my council, and councils had no alternative but to reply to that letter. This is forced local government reorganisation, no matter what people say. The people of Broxbourne instinctively understand what Ministers continue to deny: that large councils are remote from the people they serve, with decision makers naturally less concerned about towns and villages that they have no connection to. Moreover, the big new authorities will cost towns and villages money, not save it. There will be no savings from reorganisation. I am yet to see any evidence that unitary councils provide better government than the two-tier system that we have in place. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation—whether North Yorkshire or Somerset—come forward and say, “D’you know what? We’re awash with cash. We’ve got so much money now that we’ve saved so much through reorganisation.” I have not seen that. In fact, when Somerset council went through reorganisation to become a single, large unitary council that the Government accepted, it increased council tax by 10%. There were no savings. If the Government are hellbent on doing this and want to move forward with it, they should show us the evidence that that type of council serves its residents the best, is cheaper and provides better services. Last year we learned that the Department did not even carry out its own cost analysis of the reorganisation. Do not get me wrong—Broxbourne council is not perfect, nor is any district council—but, given its reasonable size and proximity to residents it at least has a chance to make a positive difference, if run well. It is no secret why Broxbourne residents voted to keep the council the same, as they do year after year. Council tax is lower than anywhere else, while services such as waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax. We all know that, when reorganisation comes, the new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates that it can get away with. From day one residents in the new authority, which my constituents will be forced into, will pay more in council tax but get less back. For those reasons, I fundamentally oppose the reorganisation. The process we have seen so far should also make us doubt the Government’s ability to achieve what they have promised. As already mentioned, just last week the County Councils Network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, pointing out that the top-down imposition of local government reorganisation, as we have seen in Sussex, goes against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made this point, but I too say, “Please show us the evidence. Show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances of what the Government want to achieve.” It is difficult to do that when I have sat in a number of debates on this issue—I was on the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026—and not seen one shred of evidence that the new authorities will deliver better services and charge less in council tax. The majority of councils in Hertfordshire, including Broxbourne, support the proposal to create four unitary councils, rather than two or three, as they know that councils operating as close to the people as possible serve their residents better. When it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation—and let me be crystal clear for the avoidance of doubt, though it will be no surprise to the Minister, I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire—I hope that the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on that. I urge the Minister, as I do every time in such debates, “Please review the policy, please make sure that future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure that whatever system is forced upon us will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.”

15. What steps he is taking to improve accountability in the health service.

We need more local accountability in the NHS. In Broxbourne we have seen thousands of new houses built, but when I and local Conservative councillors have pushed for new healthcare facilities to cope with the new demand, we have been refused. Can the Minister explain who will be accountable for that under the Government’s new system?

This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister set out the evidence for her statement that unitary councils perform better?

If the Minister reckons that Ministers should not dictate what local government structures should be, will she let areas that have two-tier government, and that want to keep their district councils, keep them? My area does; it wants to keep Conservative-run Broxbourne district council. Why is she mandating that we go to unitary authorities, when she is clearly saying, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that she does not want to dictate what local government looks like across the country?

I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him. It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not. As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important. As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission. I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London. The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.

I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country. Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so. These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [ Interruption. ] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money. In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

Will the Minister give way?

3. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

New figures reveal that 73% of teachers think there is not enough focus on preparing young people for employment while they are still in school. A good apprenticeship can bridge that gap, but the number of starts has fallen for those under 19 in the past year. Will the Minister change course and lead a real change, and shift away from dead-end university degrees to high-quality apprenticeships for every young person across the country who wants one?

Q4. Welfare spending is set to rise by another £70 billion by 2030. The last time I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said he was mending the system. Since then, this disastrous Labour Government have raised taxes on working people to give even more to those who do not work. The people I speak to across Broxbourne think that this Labour Government are taking them for mugs. So what does the Prime Minister say to working people across this United Kingdom who are being asked to pay more and are getting less?

My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15-year-old son, Chrisopher, was an active and outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him. One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop-up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family. Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger, threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed, these sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt that he was being watched constantly, and felt that he could not tell his mum or his dad what was going on, fearing for their safety. Tragically, the challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life. Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I have been taken aback by their resilience and determination to ensure that this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christoforos Charity Foundation sets up and has been doing events and activities for kids where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real-life connections. As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. That is why we should act swiftly to protect children online. Will the Government stop all the reviews and get on and act now by banning phones in schools and bringing in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?

The hon. Member is speaking about company donations. I am not saying I agree with this, but does she feel that the same logic should apply to trade union donations? If she feels that companies cannot donate, does she still feel that trade unions can?

When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?

The criteria for choosing the Government’s preferred options for local government reorganisation seem to have been applied differently in Surrey than in Hampshire and Essex. Will the Government release their reasoning behind it? Let me be clear: when it comes to Hertfordshire, I do not want any reorganisation at all, but if this is forced upon us in Broxbourne, I favour the four unitaries option. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this so that I can put forward my case for my constituents, as it was wrong how many colleagues found out yesterday about their options from the media?

The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. He has probably seen, like I have, leaflets from all the political parties represented on this Committee that tell people what form of ID is acceptable way before we even get into the election period or the election date is just around the corner. Does he agree that there are multiple touchpoints for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for when they cast their vote?

I rise in support of Opposition amendment 30, and I will make some comments new clause 19 as tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The biggest thing that puts votes at risk is to keep changing the eligible ID on the list. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley about the different names that can appear on a bank card. We are yet to hear from the Government what name would need to be on a bank card—would it need to be the person’s initials, their surname, their first name, or their middle initial and surname? That will make it very difficult for clerks and polling station staff to adjudicate in busy polling stations. If guidance comes out and says, “You need your first initial and your surname. We won’t accept anything else,” that will be confusing for people. People will turn up with bank cards that are not eligible under this system. The Government are trying to make it easier for people to cast their vote by not safeguarding democracy and not requiring ID. That will create confusion. I do not see how we have come to the conclusion that we should put bank cards on the list. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other forms of ID were considered when she sat down with her officials and said, “I know what we are going to do. We are going to add bank cards to this list.” What other forms of ID were considered, and what was considered not appropriate? I think that is a fair question to the Minister. We also heard from the shadow Minister about electronic bank cards, which will be a particular issue when people turn up to the polling station and polling clerks need to check them. When I did telling at polling stations before people needed photographic ID to vote, most people turned up with ID anyway, and most people I spoke to were shocked when I told them that they did not need ID. The fact that voter ID has added integrity to the process, and that most people now think voting is more secure, is a good thing. I do not support new clause 19, which would be a step backwards in that regard. We can all play our part in enabling people to access free voter ID. The hon. Member for Ashford suggested earlier that 16 and 17-year-olds might be put off voting if they did not have ID, so why have the Government not come forward with a programme to give out free voter ID at secondary schools when people are registering to vote? That would be a way to solve some of the problems that he thinks may come out of the Bill. The Government could be doing that.

What the hon. Lady has just outlined has no effect when it comes to a provisional licence, which is photographic ID.

We will not stray into the issue of online banking, banking hubs and high street banks, but I have some sympathy: I have family members who do not want to do online banking. The hon. Lady’s mother can get a free voter authority certificate from the council, or she could choose to vote by post, and then her signature would be checked and verified by the council. There are two options for her to pick from. I do not understand why we think this is so difficult. As I said when intervening on my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I have seen political leaflets from every party represented on this Committee showing what forms of identification people need. That is before we even get to the election day, and way before the deadline that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned regarding the voter authority certificate. Voter ID has been in place now for a number of elections. I have been turning up at polling stations since the legislation came into place, and in all those hours I think one person did not have ID—and they came back with it later in the day. As I said in the evidence session, I question the data that is being collected. It is not clear that we are capturing the data on whether people come back later in the day with their identification. It was also mentioned that people get turned away at the door and might not even make it to the clerk’s desk. How many of those people come back? They will not be captured in that data. Voter identification is a good thing, and I am extremely concerned that we are watering it down. As I said, the Government are putting people who work at polling stations in a very difficult position, because it is not clear what type of name—first name, initials or surnames—needs to be on the bank card. We will have more disputes under the new system that the Government are trying to introduce than we have under the system that we have now.

I am arguing that if we are going to do automatic enrolment, it should be for everybody, all at the same time, across the country. As I have pointed out, one could do pilots within council areas, as long as everyone in the whole area is being enrolled at the same time. I have given a number of examples. In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have two registration authorities, so it could be that at a general election some people within the same constituency are auto-enrolled while others are not. I do not believe that is fair. I said at the start of this that I think the current arrangements for registering to vote in this country are perfectly fine, and that people have a choice to register or not. If someone says, “I do not wish to register to vote,” that is their choice. That is up to the individual.

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that this measure could be reintroduced during the next parliamentary Session, when we can give a lot more thought to where the demos will take place and to the detail of who will be auto-enrolled first, and we can properly scrutinise the Government? As he rightly points out, this Government have made a number of U-turns. It is very difficult to trust a word that Ministers say or to know whether they will keep their word about the Bills they bring in. Does he agree that, rather than rushing the Bill through in this Session, the Government need to go away, think again and come back with fresh ideas when they put the legislation before Parliament in the next Session?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.

Is the Minister confident that when we collect all this data, and the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission get it, they will be able to analyse it to make sure that all constituencies at the next general election fall within their parameters for how many electors each MP needs to represent, to make sure that none is too far outside that boundary?

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech. Does he share my concern that the pilots may be done on the basis of council areas, but that everyone should be auto-enrolled at the same time, rather than creating two lists of electors for a general election? Does he agree that that, in itself, will undermine the next general election and undermine democracy as a whole? Does he also agree that the Government must provide more detail about these demos, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose who they do and do not want to enrol, with this Committee and the House having no say in the matter?

The Minister probably knows the point I am about to make. I fully appreciate what she has just said about having to do these demos in real-world scenarios, but can she ensure that they will be conducted during elections where everybody is treated in the same way—that is, council elections—rather than at a general election, where she will create two types of elector? Can we have that reassurance?

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I support Opposition amendments 26 and 27 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, but I want to outline my concerns about automatic voter registration. I think the way electors currently register themselves to vote is perfectly fine and works well across the United Kingdom, but if the Government are to push forward with automatic voter registration, they must make sure it happens all across the country at the same time for the same general election; otherwise there will be serious consequences. For example, I have two councils—Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire—that are in charge of their own electoral rolls for their own council area, but both cover my constituency. Let us say that Ministers decide to do auto-enrolment by council area, and that one of my council areas gets picked, but the other one does not. In a general election campaign, some of my electors would have been automatically enrolled and some not. That will matter. If the election is close, can that be challenged in the courts? Is it fair in a democracy? I do not think Ministers have thought through that automatic voter registration needs to happen everywhere at the same time. The Government could say they will have pilot areas of automatic voter registration on the basis of council elections, and have automatic voter registration across a whole district for its council election, but not in the neighbouring district for its council election. That would be perfectly fair, because everybody within the same council boundary would be on the same electoral list and have the same rights to vote as everybody else. Unless this all happens at the same time for the next general election, there is a real danger of creating two groups of electors across the country. As has been mentioned, this will affect the next boundary commission review, which is due to take place after the next general election. There will be some constituencies where auto-enrolment has happened and some where it has not, which will affect where the boundary commission draws the lines for the general election after next.

Some people will be automatically enrolled who have chosen, under the current system, not to be on the electoral roll, but it is a question of fairness. If we are not having that across the country, all at the same time, it will create an unfair election result. As I understand it, it will be up to Ministers to choose whether they do it by age, by location or by demographic. If everyone is not enrolled at the same time, one could arguably gerrymander, because one could pick people based on who they are likely to vote for at the general election. I do not think we need automatic enrolment, but if the Government are going to push forward with it, they could at least say, “We are going to make the next generation fair in terms of auto-enrolment, and we are going to do it for everybody, all at the same time, across the country for the next general election.” If the Government are worried about capacity to do that, I suggest that what is needed is more time. The Electoral Commission might say that it needs more time to do it, so it would have to happen at the next general election after that. As I have said, they could do pilots based on council elections, as long as the whole authority is covered by that pilot.

Some of those 8 million people may have chosen not to be on the electoral roll. Would the hon. Lady like to stand in a constituency where half of her electors are auto-enrolled and the other half are not? What are the consequences of that if the election is very close? Will it be taken through the courts?

I am arguing that, if we want to lower the voting age, we need to have a debate about when someone becomes an adult. We can absolutely have that debate, and if the Government decide that we want votes at 16, we need to consider a number of other age limits. I would not change any of them, and I would not reduce the voting age to 16, because I believe that people should be able to vote when they become an adult, at 18. If the Government intend to change that, we need to consider lots of other age limits. As I just pointed out, the last Labour Government obviously believed that people become adults at 18. That is why they raised the smoking age, and why they introduced legislation to ensure that people could not leave school and just do nothing, so that people now have to stay in education, training or employment until the age of 18. How can someone go out and vote for me to have certain rights when they do not have those rights themselves? That needs to be looked at. As has already been asked, why has the Labour party’s national executive committee raised to 18 the age limit for voting in some party official elections and standing for some of those posts? That is nonsense. The Labour party is saying that people can vote for their MPs, but cannot vote in internal party elections, or stand for some of those positions, until they are 18. That is absolute nonsense. I support amendment 33, in the name of the shadow Minister, because it would make the Government think again. As I said, we need to look at these age limits as a whole. We need to look at the age someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary figure. The Minister said that she wanted consistency. If the Government are successful in lowering the voting age to 16, then of course, to make this consistent, people should be able to vote in recall petitions. But she should then go a step further, by allowing people to stand. If we trust young people, at the age of 16, to cast their ballots for someone to represent them, they should be able to stand as well. There have been a number of contributions on whether someone should be able to stand. What is the difference between listening to somebody who wants our vote and listening to someone whose vote we have, and whose constituency casework we need to deal with? That is the same skillset: listening, developing policy, thinking about what to do and thinking about legislation to bring forward. I will never know how one can argue that the age limit for one of those should be 18 and the other 16. I do not support lowering the voting age, and I will oppose clause 1. If the Government intend to lower the voting age, I urge them to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country. This Bill will have unintended consequences. If the Government deem that 16 is when someone becomes an adult in this country, we need to have a wider discussion about what other legislation will need to be changed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. We are coming at this debate in the wrong way. We need to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary age at which it is acceptable to vote. The last Labour Government obviously thought that people become adults at 18. I remember that some people in my school year could buy cigarettes, at 16, and the last Labour Government raised that to 18. I would have supported that at the time, but the last Labour Government’s principle was obviously that adulthood started at 18 rather than 16. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, said that someone can join the Army, RAF or Navy at 16. That is true, but they cannot be deployed on the frontline. A consequence of the Bill could therefore be that somebody can vote for a party or a Prime Minister of this country, which then, heaven forbid, has to send troops to the frontline, where they themselves cannot go, even though they are theoretically voting to send other people there. That is a difficult and challenging situation. We need to look at other age limits, whether for smoking, going to the frontline or driving. They all need to come at the age that someone becomes an adult.

Q I should declare that when I was a councillor, I did a number of things with Councillor Golds on similar committees at the Local Government Association. Harry, earlier you mentioned a percentage of people in your data who get turned away at polling stations. Was that all because they did not have the appropriate ID? I have seen people get turned away from polling stations simply because they have turned up to the wrong one. Do those people get included in your data, or is it just people who fail to bring the appropriate ID? Harry Busz : That figure is just for people who fail to bring ID. We do see people who are turned away because they may not be registered or they may be at the wrong polling station, but they are not included in those statistics.

Q We have not touched on this with this group of witnesses: Richard, what are your views on automatic voter registration? In particular, what are your views on a situation where not everybody would be automatically enrolled at the same time for the same general election, potentially creating two groups of the electorate? Richard Mawrey: We have not really touched on automatic registration. I can see the thinking behind it. My view is that it is going to be almost impossible to achieve in practice, because you can only register people automatically if you are satisfied that they are entitled to vote. By the time that you have ascertained that they are entitled to vote, you have had to have carried out some form of inquiry—possibly even a house-to-house inquiry —on who is living where and whether they are entitled to vote. Assuming you have people living in a house, you go and knock on the door and say, “Do you live here? Are you entitled to vote?” If they say yes, do you then go further and say, “On what basis can you show that you are a relevant Commonwealth citizen?”, or whatever it happens to be. It may be a marvellous idea, but in practice, it will turn out to be unworkable. I suspect that it will also turn out to be an opportunity for gaming the system. People will be automatically registered who have no right to be, because the registration office has been in good faith, so to speak, set up by fraudsters to do that. By all means enact it, but I suspect that when push comes to shove, registration officers are going to start saying, “How do we do this?”, and they do not have the money, staff and resources. I think that it will turn out to be rather a damp squib. I am not saying it is a bad idea; I am just saying it is an idea that ain’t going to work.

If the Minister issued new oil and gas licences for the North sea we could produce more of our oil and gas here at home. That would mitigate some of the problems that he has just raised about being over-reliant on oil states.

Q I would like to talk about the 8 million people you reckon are not registered. Some of those people might choose not to register to vote, and the Government’s intention in the Bill is to bring in automatic voter registration. Do you see any issues with that if they are not all automatically registered for the same general election? For example, if four million are automatically registered before the next general election, and four million are not, you could argue that there are two different sets of electors, with one being easier to register and one being harder. Can you comment on that? Vijay Rangarajan: You are absolutely right. One of the risks we have with automatic voter registration across the UK is a significant divergence of systems. The Welsh Government have already carried out successful pilots and done a lot of work on this. As I understand it, they intend to proceed with automatic voter registration in Wales relatively soon—over the next year or so. The Scottish Government are also beginning to think about it. Obviously, the provisions are here in the Bill, but there is quite a long timescale for them. It is possible that we will end up with several different systems of automatic voter registration, and that they will act at different times. That would have real problems, and it does not feel to us like a good use of money. It would also be very complex indeed for an electoral registration officer to try to handle different registration systems in one area for different elections. Take, for example, a Welsh officer dealing with automatic voter registration for Welsh elections but not for UK-wide ones. We would welcome some rapid work to establish a UK-wide system of automatic voter registration soon.

Q May I briefly follow that up? Is it your opinion, then, that if we are going to have automatic voter registration, everyone should be automatically registered for the same general election? Vijay Rangarajan: Yes; there should be some uniformity of registration across the UK and for other elections, or else a voter will be automatically registered for one election and have to manually register for another, which is a recipe for confusion and some nugatory work on their part. We would therefore like to see this in place soon. That does not mean that every voter will be on the register; they have the perfect right to refuse to be on it, and there are systems in place for that. In some countries, officers will write to a voter, mostly to check the address is correct and to ensure accuracy. If a voter says, “I don’t want to be registered,” or, “I have good reasons”—say, domestic violence reasons—“for not wanting to be on the open register,” they can make that clear. So there are a number of checks built into this; it is not quite as simple as everyone automatically being on the register. This would remove a major barrier to eligible voters being able to exercise their democratic rights.

Q If you are going to take those recommendations forward and do automatic voter registration across Wales, it is your view that everyone should be done in the same Senedd election, rather than it being done in two halves, for example? Karen Jones: My understanding is that that is the plan in Wales. We will be working to a common timetable and will have a common approach to the way that automatic registration will be rolled out across the 22 local authority areas.

Q Karen, I have a question for you. You said that in Wales there have been four pilot areas of automatic voter registration. For my benefit and that of the Committee, could you tell us where they were? Were they for council elections? If they were, why did you decide to do them for council elections and not a Senedd election? Karen Jones: Just to clarify, they were not for an election event. They were exercises looking at the ability to add names accurately to the electoral registers. They were in Cardiff, Ceredigion, Wrexham and Powys.

Paying illegal asylum seekers £40,000 to leave the United Kingdom is a kick in the teeth for my hard-working constituents. Why are we not using that money to build a detention centre so that we can detain and immediately deport those who arrive in this country illegally?

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. When creating new unitary councils, it is important that we take communities with us, and community identity is really important. I have raised concerns about this whole devolution and unitarisation process and how we take all the communities within the shire councils across the country with us. On Surrey in particular, will the Minister, in her summing up, reflect on a comment made in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)? He called for the new proposed unitary authority covering his constituency to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex, rather than simply West Surrey, to ensure that we get that historical county representation and take communities with us.

I completely agree. I do not think the Government have spent much time considering that fundamental flaw and how we take communities with us by getting that identity right. The people of Spelthorne feel strongly about their historical ties to Middlesex, and I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns. Creating big new super-unitary councils by shoving multiple areas together does not make people feel included, because no one wants to end up like Birmingham. It is really important that we take communities with us.

Having decided that elections should go ahead after all, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Conservative-run Broxbourne council on defending democracy from day one and never once considering delaying its elections? Will he confirm that this Labour Government will not use the same tactics to delay the next general election?

The SEND system needs urgent and serious reform. Families I speak to in Broxbourne have been battling against an unfair funding formula that sees pupils get thousands of pounds less than elsewhere in the country. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and my constituents that historical demand will no longer be a factor in allocating funding, so that the system is truly fair for every child?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate. Supported exempt accommodation plays a critical role across the country, but as we have heard, there are clear issues that need to be resolved. It provides housing to support those living independently, and crucially, it supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including care leavers, people with disabilities, those who have experienced homelessness or rough sleeping, those recovering from a drug or an alcohol addiction, individuals recently released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery. The nature of supported accommodation and the support that it provides mean that it is exempt from the usual caps on housing benefit. That exemption exists for a good reason. However, the sector is fragmented, regulated by multiple bodies and lacks a single, coherent regulatory framework. For some time now, there have been serious concerns about inconsistency, poor standards, poor-quality provision in some areas and the long-term financial sustainability of the sector. More recently, the Government’s supported housing review, published in November 2024, showed that in 2023, there were 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain. More than a third of those—more than 215,000 units—were claimed through the housing benefit system. Critically, the review also highlighted a substantial shortfall. It estimated that nearly 400,000 additional supported housing units are needed right now to meet the unmet demand. Looking ahead, that figure rises dramatically, with up to 640,000 additional units required by 2040, particularly for older people. Against that backdrop, it is deeply concerning that the sector itself has warned that it is in crisis. In April 2025, more than 170 organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to call for at least £1.6 billion a year in long-term funding for local authorities. Further warnings followed in July 2025, highlighting the risks of strengthening regulation without providing the funding to make it work. In August 2025, the Local Government Association echoed those concerns, calling for increased funding and new guidance to help councils prepare for the implementation of the new regulatory requirements. All that sits in a wider housing context that should worry us all. The Government have set a target of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, yet their own figures show that housing supply in England fell to 208,600 net additional dwellings in the year 2024-25 —a 6% decrease on the previous year and the biggest fall in 12 years, outside the pandemic. Just over 190,600 new homes were built, which is fewer than in the final year of the previous Government and 16% below the peak of 2019-20. Against that backdrop, let me turn to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government supported the passage of the Act, which is the first to directly regulate the standard of support provided in supported accommodation in England. It received Royal Assent in June 2023, and has the potential to drive up standards, improve accountability and protect residents from poor-quality provision. However, legislation alone is not enough. The Government consulted on the implementation of the Act in the summer of 2025, and in January 2026 they said they would respond “as soon as possible”. Given the pressures facing the sector, a response cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish their response to the consultation and when the Act will be fully implemented? Finally, let me put on the record the action taken by the previous Government in this area. Alongside the passage of the Act, they published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out what good looks like and how local authorities should plan to meet the demand. They invested £5.4 million in enforcement pilots, including in Birmingham, and an independent evaluation showed that the pilots improved the quality of accommodation and support while preventing an estimated £6.2 million in illegitimate or unreasonable housing benefit payments. Further support was provided through updated guidance, good practice resources and £20 million from the supported housing improvement programme to help councils to drive up quality and value for money. The challenge is clear. Regulation must be implemented properly, swiftly and with adequate funding. Supported housing is not a niche issue; it is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people and a cornerstone of our wider housing system. If we fail to get this right, the most vulnerable people will pay the price. That is why I urge the Government to act with urgency, with clarity and with the resources needed, so that the sector can thrive.

Of course I am pleased about that target, but anyone can stand at the Dispatch Box, set a target and make it sound good. We want action on the ground. The Government have been in power for 18 months, and when I speak to my constituents, including young people, they say, “We don’t see action.” We need to move faster and further on this.

My hon. Friend does not look a day over 30, so it cannot be his 40th birthday coming up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go further? Of course we need economic growth. We need to tax jobs less and let the people outside create that economic growth, but we also need to look at the education system so that we prepare young people better when they leave education for the world of work. That is what employers are crying out for.

As we have heard, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is at its highest level for more than a decade. Astonishingly, the most recent figures show that 946,000 young people are in that position, which is almost one in every eight young people across the country. We can all agree that this situation is completely unsustainable and damaging to our society, but despite their promises, the Government’s actions have only made it harder for young people to find jobs. To the surprise of no one, apart from the Chancellor and her Back Benchers, increasing the cost of employment through the rise in national insurance has led to more unemployment. Last month saw the biggest monthly fall in the number of payroll employees since the pandemic, and the unemployment rate across the United Kingdom is 5.1%. What is the Labour Government’s response? They just keep increasing benefits. Welfare spending will rise by £18 billion this year, and is on track to increase by another £73 billion over the next five years. The biggest driver of that increase is spending on working-age adults. The number of new claimants for the personal independence payment is 78% higher than pre-pandemic levels, and 110,000 graduates under the age of 30 now claim at least one benefit without being in work. Why would a young person today take on the risk of their idea and start a business, or put hours of effort into a job, when they see more and more of their peers getting by on Government handouts? I come to this issue with the very simple belief that the best form of welfare is a well-paid job, and that must be our country’s guiding principle.

My right hon. Friend makes an incredible point, and that is precisely what businesses tell me. As I have said, it comes as no surprise to any of my constituents or businesses in Broxbourne—it is a surprise only to the Chancellor and the Labour party—that if the Government tax jobs more, there will be fewer jobs. The Opposition have been making that point. I am always surprised when Labour MPs come out and say that they have spoken to businesses in their constituency and everything seems fine. They should speak to businesses that have a Conservative MP, because they would hear a completely different message. More people in decent, sustainable employment and a life off benefits is better for our economy and our public finances. To show young people that there can be a better future, we must change the economic model to reward employment properly and change our education system so that young people are prepared for the world of work. We should be more creative about what we are asking young people to learn at school. Countless employers in my constituency have told me that, when they hire school leavers, they lack important skills such as writing an email, speaking with customers over the phone, and understanding basic finance and the language of contracts. It is not that young people today cannot or will not develop those skills, nor is it the fault of our brilliant teachers; the curriculum simply is not geared to preparing young people for work in the modern world. We should be inviting local businesses, entrepreneurs and employers into schools more regularly so that they can share their knowledge and experience to encourage students to think about how they can get their ideas off the ground and what it takes to run a viable business. When I asked about this issue before, I was told by a Government Minister from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government who create economic growth in this country. Let me say gently to the Government that it is not they, nor us as MPs, who create economic growth in this country; it is all our constituents across the United Kingdom who take a risk, put their ideas forward, create jobs and economic growth locally, and employ lots of people. In school, students could learn about marketing, economics, maths and law, all without knowing that they are actually learning those skills and all without a textbook in sight. That sort of system would help our young people to navigate the crucial period after leaving school and make them more attractive to employers. I have seen fantastic work at the Broxbourne school, which teaches a business T-level in which students go out into the world of work and have an apprenticeship alongside learning in the classroom. That is what we need to gear our education system towards: preparing young people better for the world of work in the 21st century. I went through my whole education in the United Kingdom under new Labour and Tony Blair, and I remember Tony Blair saying that he wanted half of all young people to go to university. University might be the right choice for some young people in this country, but it is not the right choice for everybody. When I was choosing what I would do after school, the word “apprenticeship” was not even in the school’s vocabulary. There was no offer of an apprenticeship. School leavers then either went to university or fell off the edge of a cliff and did nothing. That record, from when new Labour was in power, is not one that I would be proud of; I think Labour Members need to reflect on what they did last time they were in government, because it clearly did not work then and it is not going to work now.

I would gently say to the hon. Lady that her party colleagues had 13 years to come up with a plan for government when they were in opposition. That paper should have landed the day after the general election; that is when the Government should have been getting on with it, not 18 months down the line. My message to the Government is clear: yes, make the obvious tax changes that businesses from all our constituencies are crying out for, but also show that you are serious about creating economic growth, tackling youth unemployment and bringing forward fundamental changes to education.

As a leaseholder, I understand the issues that leaseholders face, and I look forward to carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on the HCLG Committee. The conveyancing process also needs to be looked at, as I am not sure that solicitors and managing agents point out considerations such as historical service charges, whether the property has a sinking fund and how much service charges have gone up. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that that part of the process of buying a leasehold property will also be looked at within this legislation?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the tiny—absolute minuscule—support that the Government are offering in this legislation. We are continually told that most rates will be capped and the changes will not affect most businesses on the high street, but I have not spoken to a single business or pub on my high street that is not seeing a significant increase in its business rates, even with the relief. Let us take the Farmers Boy in Brickendon: its business rates are going to go from £4,000 to £8,000. I do not understand which businesses the Minister or people in the Department are speaking to out there to say that most are not going to see an increase. From the businesses that I speak to, that is simply not true. We continually hear from the Government, “You guys were in power before the last general election,” but they have had 18 months and they have done nothing. They had 14 years in opposition when they could have come up with a credible plan for government, but they have proved to the people up and down the United Kingdom that they were clearly incapable of doing that. I want to understand from the Minister what the Government will do to support businesses and stop these closure notices—because they are closure notices for many of my constituents in Broxbourne.

Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council wants its elections to go ahead, and the people of Broxbourne should be allowed their choice on 7 May. However, devolution plans could see us merge with Labour-run Stevenage borough council and the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition-run Welwyn Hatfield borough council, which both want their elections to be cancelled. Conservative-run Broxbourne council wants its elections to go ahead. I, as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, want the elections to go ahead. The people of Broxbourne want their elections to go ahead. Can the Minister categorically confirm to my constituents that local elections in Broxbourne will go ahead on 7 May?

Q8. The world is becoming more dangerous every single day. The Ministry of Defence has said that it needs an extra £28 billion to keep us safe. Well, I know where the Prime Minister can find it: stop this nonsense Chagos islands surrender policy, and spend that money on protecting the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister commit to that, or will he continue to put the interests of foreign Governments and countries above our own?

As we have heard, trial by jury is one of this country’s most fundamental rights. Only months ago, this Government were elected and a Minister was saying: “Jury service is an essential part of criminal justice which underpins the impartiality and fairness that runs through our legal system.” I would have thought that every Member from right across the House would agree with that statement. Not a single one of us stood on a manifesto at the last general election to abolish jury trials in this country. Why would Ministers be so keen to abandon such an important tradition of our great country? That we ask that question will come as no surprise to our constituents. From abolishing local councils and cancelling elections to imposing an authoritarian digital identity scheme, it is all part of the same pattern. Again and again, this Labour Government show that they are more than happy to curtail the voice and freedom of the British people. If the Ministry of Justice had exhausted every possible route to get that backlog down, its proposals on jury trial trials might have a bit more credibility. This Government could remove the cap on sitting days, ensuring that courts can work at full capacity. They could work day and night to eliminate inefficiencies in the system, which waste hours of court time—but they have not. Having seen the justice system up close through my work with Hertfordshire’s police and crime commissioner, I know that huge amounts of time are lost before a case even reaches court. A recent study from the University of Leicester found that, on average, it takes 113 days to charge a suspect after a crime has been recorded. Issues between police forces and the CPS when cases are submitted can add at least 72 days to the length of a case. Communication between police forces and prosecutors could be vastly improved. Digital evidence, such as body-worn cameras and CCTV, is widely present and the study notes that cases with digital evidence were submitted more quickly to the CPS than those without. Investigators also warn, however, of how time-consuming handling that sort of evidence can be. The Government should therefore focus on ensuring that police forces, prosecutors, the courts and, of course, victims take full advantage of video evidence so as to accelerate justice rather than slow it down. That is just one example of the actions that Ministers could take, instead of embarking on this jury trials policy, which abandons such an essential component of justice in the United Kingdom. I urge this Government to start listening, to use all the tools available to them and to drop this disastrous policy.

4. What progress her Department has made on closing asylum hotels.

This is my ninth question about the asylum hotel in my constituency, and I am still waiting for a clear answer. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we would see “evidence” of hotels being closed soon, but plans to move asylum seekers into new council housing would solve nothing and be an insult to millions on the waiting list. My constituents want the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne closed immediately. Will the Minister meet me to explain how and when this asylum hotel will close?

Q12. The best form of welfare in this country should be a well-paid job, but with unemployment up and this Labour Government choosing to raise taxes to spend even more on a bloated welfare and benefits system, is the Prime Minister happy with the message that sends to my hard-working constituents in Broxbourne and constituents right across the United Kingdom?

Q8. When it comes to economic growth, this Labour Government are all talk and no action—so maybe I can help the Prime Minister. Roadworks and traffic jams cost the UK economy £8 billion last year. This affects my constituents every single day. They want to know what the Government are doing about it, and when the Government are going to back working people and get Britain moving.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives did not have referendums on structural political changes, but we did have a referendum to change the voting system; I voted against a change. That is a prime example of the Conservatives seeking the consent of the British people for a political change.

The last Labour Government, which was elected in 1997, established devolution and moved powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result. However, this Labour Government are choosing not to undertake such a referendum. Which does the hon. Gentleman support: having a referendum or not having a referendum?

Oh, go on then; I will take one more intervention.

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services. In summary—

I will not take any more interventions, as I have been more than generous—

Does the hon. Member support my proposal that councils, particularly local district councils that currently have planning powers, need more powers over the licensing of houses in multiple occupation? They cause terrible antisocial behaviour issues and parking issues right across the country, and we need more powers to stop HMOs where they are not wanted. What are his views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs?

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point with which I have great sympathy. We have to try to take different communities together, but we should not compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns that are not interlinked naturally by roads and railways or by people’s jobs. Lots of my constituents work in London and would never, or hardly ever, make the journey of about an hour along the A414 to Watford or Hemel Hempstead. The situation is very different. I can understand how devolution works when there is a single city centre and why in some respects it works in our towns and city regions where there is a single space, but I do not understand how it will work in practice when there are a number of towns all of the same size.

I agree. We tabled a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we worked across parties, with Members of all stripes, to improve the Bill and get these powers out into the community, where they can best be used. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the Government would not even listen to logical arguments about how the Bill could empower local communities. As I have said, “community empowerment” might be in the Bill’s name, but it is not what is in the Bill.

The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.

I can take the hon. Member to my constituency if he wants to see a pro-growth local council that has delivered a local plan and delivered housing. What has held us back is the fact that we do not have the infrastructure in place because of that. We have been punished; we have been a good local council and met our housing targets, yet this Labour Government are forcing more housing on us with no powers to get the infrastructure that people need. My constituency borders London, and when the Bill came out, my constituents said to me on the doorstep, “I do not want to be part of the Greater London area and to be under the Mayor of London”. We have seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London, and my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. I gently push back on the hon. Member that I do not agree with his analogy of the current state of play. If the Government really wanted to empower councils—I stray a tiny bit away from the topic—to help them improve town centres and create economic growth, they could give powers to the councils we already have. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this Bill to go through the House, with all the amendments the Government put down, because this Bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal Assent. We tabled a number of amendments in Committee. It just shows that the Government have got this wrong and should go back to the drawing board.

As he is a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.

I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth. I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Floor of the House putting forward our case on where the Government have got it wrong on devolution. He raised an important point about the Government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and unitarisation. There has been no choice in that, as I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne council, which is Conservative led under Councillor Corina Gander. She does not want to reorganise, does not want devolution and does not want it forced on the areas that she and I represent. When I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever said to me, “You know what, Lewis? This is what we need to do in our area—we need to reorganise. We need to have an elected mayor, a strategic authority and a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people.” No one has ever raised that with me on the doorstep, and it just goes to show that this Government are not listening to the priorities of the British people.

I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow. Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution. There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported. For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.

I was talking about the physical aspects of the transport currently in place, and the transport in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for such interlinking services. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point around shared services of councils. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they have brought forward this community empowerment Bill and devolution in order to make councils more efficient and save loads of money. I do not believe it will save lots of money, for the reasons the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out: many councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments or shared audit, and indeed combined authorities also have shared back-office functions.

One more time, and then I will make progress.

I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?

As a former deputy police and crime commissioner, I know the hard work that police and crime commissioners do, and I know that the Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, does all he can to keep Hertfordshire residents safe. The Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill bans councils from making decisions by committee and forces them to change to a strong leader model. Can the Minister explain why the Government think it is appropriate to have police governance by committee, but not local authority governance by committee?

I should declare that I have a data centre in my constituency under construction. It went through the normal planning route. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that if someone wants a data centre to go through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the local planning authority and local people will still be able to have a say on the application?

T8. In a new poll, FairFuelUK has found that three out of four road users who voted Labour want fuel duty to be kept frozen or reduced. Will the Chancellor listen to the people who put her into Government and ensure that that regressive tax, which hits low-income families and economic growth the hardest, is not increased?

I fully support the right to buy, which was a good policy— [ Interruption. ] I am just stating that it was a good policy and I supported that. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about communication, which must be there. As I have mentioned, Enfield council does not collect a sinking fund, which can go some way towards mitigating some of the issues, as she and I have raised, with leaseholders being asked to stump up for large bills. We need more transparency and better regulation, and we must ensure—here I agree with hon. Members across the Chamber—that councils adopt outside amenity spaces. We need real improvements in the way that leaseholders are treated. Abolishing ground rent is a good first step and the Government need to get on with delivering that. I also agree that commonhold must be more widespread, but is by no means a silver bullet or right for everyone. I urge the Government to get on with it, improve the lives of hundreds of my constituents, and urgently implement more of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We must get on with those improvements and help hundreds of our constituents.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate. I understand more than most the issues with property service charges, because I am a leaseholder where I live in Hoddesdon. A quarter of my constituents live in flats or maisonettes, and 25% of property transactions in Broxbourne last year involved leasehold properties, but shockingly, as we have heard, it is hard to find any leaseholder who has a good word to say about their landlord or their service charge. Landlords and solicitors do not provide enough information to new residents, and far too often prospective residents are not properly informed before they move in about how much service charges have increased in previous years. They are then hit with huge rises down the line. It is also unclear where the money is going. A resident in Waltham Cross told me: “The service charge has skyrocketed from around £800 to £6,000 for each leaseholder, yet living conditions remain extremely dire. Residents here face ongoing issues including trespassers, mould, broken security doors, mice infestations and squatters. Our building also has several defects, including weak floors, fire safety issues, and ongoing leakages. At one point my flat became uninhabitable after a severe leak that took months to resolve”. I hear these stories again and again from constituents who come to me as the contact of last resort after months and sometimes years of neglect to their property. In that case I met the management company involved, RMG, earlier this year, but nothing has changed. Whether it is RMG, FirstPort, Bamptons, EN8 Homes or Warwick Estates, leaseholders deserve better from their landlords and management companies, who focus purely on collecting ever higher charges for worse services. However, by far the worst treatment of leaseholders in my constituency has been at the hands of—I hope the Minister is listening to this point—Labour-run Enfield council. I was first contacted by residents on the Whitefields estate in May this year, and what I heard left me outraged. Completely out of the blue, Enfield council was demanding up to £50,000 from each leaseholder for “urgent” repairs. Roofs that had never had a leak were earmarked to be replaced, and windows would be fixed, even though they had been used for years without issue. Understandably, my residents immediately asked, “What about my service charge?” Well, as the Leasehold Advisory Service says, many landlords collect money out of the service charge for a sinking fund, to help cover the cost of exactly these kinds of major works. But not Enfield council. No, it expects my constituents to stump up all the cash, even after raising the service charge that year and, as far as the residents are concerned, having not spent a single penny on the estate in decades. The Whitefields estate tenants association, and in particular leaseholder Nicky McCabe, have worked incredibly hard to bring the community together in response to this issue. They simply demanded straightforward answers to straightforward questions, but they were met with confusing statements from Enfield council representatives, who found it far too easy to say, “That’s not my job.” I attended the meeting. There were a number of directors from Enfield council there, all of whom earn significant sums of money, and they could not answer basic questions from my constituents about how much they would have to pay, and what was going to change on the estate. The communication was shocking. My constituents’ fight is still ongoing, and they have my full support.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point in standing up for his constituents. This is an important point. All MPs across the House have probably attended such meetings, and these companies are unable to answer the most basic questions. They are paid considerable amounts of money, and they cannot answer simple questions from constituents about how much money they will have to pay, where the liability sits, and what work they are going to do.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.

What does the Minister say to parishes such as my own, Hertford Heath, that do not have any more funding to support the delivery of their neighbourhood plan? They are all run by volunteers, they do not have very many houses to collect a precept from and they do not have very many staff. What does she say about that environment? They are trying to be proactive with a plan and choose where they want development, so that they are not at the mercy of developers who want to build all over the green fields. What does she say to parishes that are working really hard to do the right thing by the Government and by their local community, without any funding to go with that?

While Labour continues down the path of net zero, the UK now imports more than 40% of its total energy needs from overseas. Given that the UK is the second most expensive country in the world for household electricity, will the Minister issue new oil and gas licences so that we can get oil and gas out of the North sea to support jobs and help energy companies to cut fuel costs for people right across these isles?

The fundamental responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but—from the mistaken release of a dangerous foreign sex offender to scrapping future prison sentences for over half of offenders—which side is Labour on? Is it on the side of the hard-working, law-abiding British public, or the criminals who target and exploit them?

Does the Minister include metropolitans and unitary councils in what she has just said?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that all of us in this room should understand the importance of printed paper to get our message across, considering that during our election campaigns we deliver thousands of leaflets to get our messages out? Does he agree that we should support these amendments to make sure that councils still have the ability to connect with communities that are not digitally connected?

I rise in support of amendment 5, spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. This is where the Government should have started. The amendment seeks to put place at the very heart of local government reorganisation, which the Government have missed. In coming up with the arbitrary target of half a million people or thereabouts, they have not thought about place and how communities connect with shared identities. I have spoken in Committee before about Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has a number of significant towns, all of relatively the same size and population, but there is very little interconnectivity between the towns, particularly on rail and road. Not many people move between those towns, and I fear the consequences of an arbitrary target of around half a million. I appreciate what the Minister has said about the flexibility of that target, but even setting a target of 300,000 people is not looking at what best serves communities; it is sitting in Whitehall, coming up with a figure, and saying, “This is what we want to push top-down throughout the country. This is what we need to do,” rather than saying to places, “We want to reorganise you. Please come up with appropriate examples of how you might best do that within your communities.” That is what the amendment speaks to. We really need to think about place. If we want these new councils to be successful, they must have buy-in from local communities. Local communities must have a shared sense of identity and a shared sense of vision. We cannot lump places together that have hardly any connectivity—places that people do not travel between—because we would be setting up those councils to fail, and to have competing priorities for the towns they want and do not want to invest in. The amendment is logical, and it is disappointing that the Government did not start off in this place and give more flexibility to the top-down reorganisation they are forcing on large parts of England. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wishes to push the amendment to a vote, the official Opposition shall support it.

Not as many under this proposal. The Government do not have a mandate for this. They said lots of things in their manifesto about what they would and would not do, but they have done lots of things that were not in their manifesto, which is really damaging for democracy. The Government should be asking local people what they want, as I am sure we all do when we go out and speak to our constituents. I have two district councils in my constituency, Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire, and not one person has told me, “Do you know what we need to solve lots of the our problems and day-to-day challenges? We need to reorganise the council. We need a bigger authority. We need to be further removed from it.” This policy does not stack up, and it has been rushed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I agree with much of what has been said already. This clause goes to the very heart of the Bill and highlights why it is bad. I led Broxbourne council, a district council, and was a county councillor on an authority that represented 1.2 million people, so I can say from experience that bigger does not always mean better. I wish other Committee members had been elected to councils so that they could have had that experience. I only wish that it worked in the ways that Labour Members have described, and that it were so easy to get things done in large authorities. From my experience of serving on a large county authority, I know that councillors are more removed from the residents they serve. Those authorities are very officer led, and it is very difficult to get things done. At the end of the day, it is the residents who fall out from that. District councils have planning powers, the best way to transform lives. I fear for what will happen to planning services when we have big new unitary authorities of 500,000 or 400,000 people. Those services will be far removed from the people the councillors are making decisions for.

When I go out to speak to people in Broxbourne, they are completely against this—they do not want it. They fear a large council. I have spoken to many councillors, and my reflection is that things depend on the size of the unitary. For those serving in a smaller unitary, people tend to be happier with the council and the services it delivers, but I am yet to find people—in particular, back benchers on a large unitary council—who feel engaged and motivated, with residents respecting that. However, the hon. Gentleman will have different experiences in his constituency. I do not think unitarisation is a good idea. I have a lot of experience in local government, and it will cost people more in council tax where councils go through unitarisation and districts are forced to merge. My district, Broxbourne, has the lowest parish council tax in the country, so whatever happens through the proposed reorganisation, the good residents of Broxbourne will pay more in their council tax bills, probably for fewer services. Simply going through the reorganisation does not mean that we will see better services. We are told constantly that councils have been underfunded and that services will improve, but no one can show me a council that has been through reorganisation that is awash with money. I have not spoken to one council that has been through reorganisation that has said, “Do you know what? We have been through a reorganisation. We have made loads of savings and we have become more efficient.” In actual fact, all the councils that I have looked into that have gone through reorganisation have set up delivery mechanisms and organigrams of staffs and departments based on the old district boundaries. They all have area planning committees that all have to be costed and so on. A number of reports include farcical figures claiming that an area will save millions and millions from going through the reorganisation, because of redundancies, and better and joined-up services. Let me tell the Committee this: many district councils already have joined-up services and have already gone through that process. Some services, such as human resources, are shared with upper-tier authorities, while others such as waste collection are shared across multiple authorities. The councils have already made lots of those savings, which are already baked into their district budgets and so on. I am yet to see any concrete figures for how much money reorganisation will save.

I could not agree more. I think that is true, and it is an important reason why the Government are focusing on certain parts of the country and not others. If it were true that all councils have to be of a similar size to get the best services and save the most money, and the evidence supported that claim, then surely what is good for one part of the country should be good for all the country. The Government should be representing everyone in the United Kingdom, not just certain parts. They are rather worried about taking on their own councillors.

I have served in the two-tier system and know it is not perfect, but nor is what the Government are proposing in the Bill. There are some unitary councils, such as Slough, that face really difficult financial challenges. Just having all the levers of two councils around the same table does not make for better service delivery. I served on a county council covering over 1.2 million people, and I have been in meetings to discuss where we should invest for roads infrastructure in places that I had never even been to. That is what will happen with these large-scale unitary councils, and there is evidence for that. When councils go through a reorganisation, why do they set up service delivery arms based on the old district boundaries? Why do they set up area planning committees, if everywhere is interlinked? What we are failing to understand or consider is how we will do planning and place, and how we will bring our communities with us. There are loads of areas around the country— I can speak for Hertfordshire on this—that have several significant towns all of the same size, and lots of people do not travel between those towns. My constituency probably feels closer to London, which is where lots of people commute for work, rather than to the county town of Hertford, which is just 10 minutes up the road in a car, if I can get through the traffic. We are not thinking about how we create communities and place. I fear for the democratic deficit; no one ever says to me in my constituency, “Lewis, you know what? We really feel like a part of Hertfordshire. We are on the edge of the county. We want a single unitary council. We want to go through that process. We are going to get better services because of that.” I do not believe that is the case. This is being forced upon local councils. They were told in the letter that they had to reply to it. The timescales are just astronomical. I have led a council, and I know that sometimes it is really difficult to get things done. The timescales for the rest of the country, outside the initial wave of the six plus Surrey, to be reorganised are astronomical. We are not doing this in a sensible and pragmatic way, and mistakes will be made. At the end of day, we should think about how to set up local government that is fit for the future. We should try to take the best bits for that, not create large super-unitary councils. The Government want to build 1.5 million homes, but they also want to rip up the existing planning committee system and put councils through this reorganisation. That will take a lot of work. I was leader of my authority in 2021, when we were nearly marched up the hill by the previous Government. Some have commented, “Why didn’t you speak up then?” but they can read my press releases from that time and see that I was against it then, so it is not a party political point. We need to do best by existing councils and the councillors who work day in, day out, for their residents. Making big strategic unitary authorities covering large geographical areas and hundreds of thousands of people, is not the best way to do that. The Government need to look again. If they think this is so popular locally, why not commit to having local referendums where reorganisation is proposed and letting local people have their say? The Government could hold their head high and say, “We let local people have their say. They have agreed with us,” or, “They have not agreed,” and go from there.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is interesting that the Government have moved away from that, particularly because I have not met one person who thinks that reorganisation into large unitary councils is a good idea. If it is good for parts of the country, I hope that the Minister can explain why London and lots of the metropolitan boroughs in the north are not being compelled to reorganise. If this 500,000 figure is the sweet spot and the Government have loads of evidence to back that the claim that this will make services more efficient and put councils on a better financial footing, why is it good for only certain parts of the country, and not the whole country?

No, I have not. My authorities have lost out and are no better off under the Government proposals. In particular, rural authorities lose out even more. I have already touched on the fact that millions of people across this country will pay more in council tax. We are also always told that we have to hit the figure of 500,000, which is the most efficient number and when we get all the savings. If that figure is so important, however, why are we not reorganising London? A number of unitary councils in London do not meet, or come anywhere near, the half a million mark. I suspect the reason why we are not reorganising London is that the Government do not want to upset thousands of Labour councillors. The reason we are reorganising the rest of the country is that the elected representation for the Government party in those councils is probably not where they want it to be. We are always told that about half a million is the perfect sweet spot—where we get the best services and will be really joined up and so on—but that works only for one part of the country. In the rest of the country, where there are loads of examples of councils that face difficult financial challenges and yet have low population compared with the figures that the Government want, those areas are not being reorganised at all.

What happens if one plan says one thing and another plan says another? The Minister just said that the strategic spatial framework would take precedence, but what happens if the local plan from the local planning authority has policies that contradict or do not align with the strategic plan?

We are talking about a mayoral CIL reset, but some local authorities will not introduce a CIL because they get far more out of section 106 negotiations. Will mayors be able to take part in 106 negotiations if they do not bring in their own CIL? If not, why not?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the Secretary of State needs to speed up publication of the guidance on single-sex spaces used by trans people in schools, so can the Secretary of State confirm that the guidance will be published before the conclusion of Labour’s deputy leadership contest, or will she continue to forsake female-only spaces for her own political ambitions?

I am in favour of the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I have served on a district council and a county council. Some of the powers to do with highways will sit with the constituent authorities and some will sit with the mayor, so we could end up in a scenario in which a person is elected as mayor with one thing in their manifesto, a council is elected on another manifesto and the two things contradict each other. I was leader of Broxbourne council, and we have the A10 going through the entirety of my constituency. That was not a priority for Hertfordshire county council, which had some highways authority powers over it, and that caused a lot of tensions about where we were going to have growth and where the investment was going to go.

I rise in support of amendment 300, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. It is important that we bring in more powers to tackle this issue. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, about six years ago, we were asked whether we wanted to be a trial area for e-scooters—we said no, thank goodness. My constituency is right next door to London, and we have had a number of issues with people parking on the outskirts of London and taking the vehicles out of where they are licensed. Walking around London—not just the Palace of Westminster, but the wider community—we see large problems with hundreds of scooters all in the same place, which I suspect are very popular locations for pick-up and drop-off. We need more powers for local authorities to tackle the issue. I mentioned earlier that many of councils will want this power now, rather than having to wait for mayoral combined authorities to be set up. Amendment 300 would be important in holding these companies to account. They are getting away with far too much at the moment and it is putting people off walking, especially if someone is pushing a buggy or is disabled. There are lots of issues. I am sure there will be cross-party support, as we have all seen this problem when out and about. We really need to regulate this. I am not always in favour of more regulation, but the companies could have done much more without legislation and have failed to, so it is time for stricter regulation. The amendment would be important in solving some of these issues. Question put , That the amendment be made.

In that sense, if an authority wants one now but is not on the devolution priority programme and does not have a strategic authority coming, will it be able to get those powers upon Royal Assent?

In a certain way, the citizens assembly is the electorate, and there is an election for mayors. Why does the hon. Lady feel the need for more engagement and more citizens assemblies, when there is a ballot and a free and fair election?

The Minister has said previously, “We want to empower local communities,” “We want mayors to have freedom,” and, “We want mayors to have choice,” but in this case she is prescribing which organisations should be around the table. How do those two opinions meet? In some cases, she is saying she wants mayors to have the freedom and the choice to drive local communities, but in this case, she is prescribing organisations that should be at the table.

This is one of the good clauses in the Bill, but I would like the Minister to clarify this. A number of authorities want this power now to combat the issues she just spoke about, so where strategic authorities do not exist, is there any way for even county authorities to get those powers, if the Bill receives Royal Assent?

The Minister mentions that 6,000 people replied to the consultation on Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but that only a small number of respondents actually mentioned the name. How many people from the Isle of Wight responded to that consultation, and how many of them mentioned the name?

When areas go through this process—and they are being made to go through it—will the Minister consider making it easier for areas that are unparished to create town and parish councils? Otherwise she will create large unitary authorities and some areas will have town and parish councils and others will not. Will she make it easier to set up town and parish councils where there are not any?

Will the Minister give way?

The Minister talks about our scrutiny committees being able to recommend the termination of commissioners. Has she given any thought to their involvement in the appointment of commissioners? For example, currently, those appointed as deputy police and crime commissioners have to appear before the police and crime panel, which makes a recommendation to the police and crime commissioner about their suitability for the role. Has the Minister given any thought to how scrutiny committees can get involved before someone takes on the commissioner role, rather than waiting to see if they are good or not and then making a recommendation to the mayor?

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Tuesday 16 September, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology visited my constituency to officially open Google’s new data centre in Waltham Cross, an investment that I was proud to have helped secure when I was leader of Broxbourne Council. However, not only did I fail to receive notice from the Science Secretary that she would be accompanying the Chancellor, who herself informed me at the very last moment, but not one elected representative was invited to this official event. I am sure that the Government would not have been playing politics when they failed properly to notify me or Broxbourne’s fantastic growth-focused Conservative-run council, so could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please advise me how this situation can be remedied, and how I can hold Ministers to account for obvious breaches of the ministerial code?

The British people did not vote for a two-tier digital police state run by this failing Labour Government. This policy is undemocratic and authoritarian and will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration. Will the Secretary of State listen to the overwhelming volume of public opinion and drop it immediately?