Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I know that my hon. Friend always stands up for her constituency, and that she always will. Under our proposals, shire district councils are expected to see an average funding increase of 2.7% over the spending review period. Across the Department, we will support district councils in that and other ways, and I look forward to discussing the issue in detail with my hon. Friend and her council.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service is funded through a formula that relies on population density and sparsity figures from the 2001 census. Since 2001, Cambridgeshire has grown by over 150,000 people and 30,000 new homes, making the service one of the leanest per head in the country. We have effectively built a city the size of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire and given it no further funding. Over-reliance on council tax to bridge funding gaps undermines the core principle of risk-based resource allocation, so what assurances can the Minister give me that the fairer funding review 2.0 will not require the difference to be made up by simply increasing the council tax precept by the maximum?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman mentions fire. The Minister responsible and I are keeping this issue under review, and we are happy to hear further from him if he has concerns about it.
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.
I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.
Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.
Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.
Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.
I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.
Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.
Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.
It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.
The option D business case states:
“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”
That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.
Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.
Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:
“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.
Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!
Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has informed the relevant people that he is mentioning them today in the Chamber? Can I also ask him to keep his remarks to questions that the Minister can actually answer? A lot of this seems to be straying off into an area that the Minister has no power to influence or respond to.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Has the hon. Gentleman informed the people whom he mentioned that he would name them in Parliament?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I have to ensure that I ask you the question.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options.
When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%.
On improving children’s services, option D states:
“Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”.
On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states:
“Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”.
On special educational needs and disabilities, it states:
“The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”.
Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse.
Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire.
I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham?
Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote?
The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing:
“clear patterns of support for option A.”
Support from whom? The county council goes on to say:
“The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”.
How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised?
Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city.
One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden?
Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council.
Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it.
For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production.
A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.
Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy.
I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications.
The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that
“this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.]
Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment.
In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking.
If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects.
Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has.
I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate that. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your experienced and knowledgeable chairship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing a debate that is clearly of great importance to his constituency. I think that he asked me two questions, about the place of St Neots and about whether the Government intend to deliver on their defence commitments.
Unfortunately, in relation to the specifics of the proposals, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while we are in an active process of consultation I must reserve my judgment, so that I am able to take a decision based on the facts as they will be presented to me.
On defence, I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, everyone in this country would expect the Government to do what we need to do to defend our country. Although that is not my specific responsibility in government, the defence of this country is a collective responsibility and I will work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as I do week in and week out, to make sure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to keep this country safe.
Before I turn to the topics in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will briefly set out why we are reorganising local government and why that process is important to the Government’s overall objectives. Nearly a third of our population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government services and functions split across county and district councils. That slows down economic decision making and delivery and leads to fragmentation in our public services.
Even in the short months in which I have been the Minister for Local Government, I have heard that from councillors directly. It is confusing—who does what and who is responsible? In our Department, several Ministers were leaders of councils themselves and so have practical experience of the issue. Through local government reorganisation, we are simplifying local government and establishing single-tier unitary councils everywhere.
We need stronger local councils equipped to make economic growth more likely, improve public services and empower communities. That is the point of reorganisation: so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than, in some cases, lines drawn on a map 50 years ago. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that our national growth story includes everyone, everywhere. Local government reorganisation can help to do that. With one council in charge of each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment.
There are also social and public services benefits. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture, spot problems early and, for example, support a family in need of housing and then support the children to stay in school. That often does not happen at the moment—we see families who are dealing with the worst type of homelessness being passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced two new unitary councils in Surrey, investing in residents’ futures and putting local authorities there on a sustainable footing. I am also pleased to announce further aspects of the process. This is just the start: we are working with a further 14 areas across England that will benefit from this once-in-a-generation reform, with their proposals due by 28 November.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the fragility of council finances. Everything that we are doing needs to put local authorities on a much firmer footing. The past 15 years have seen town hall finances deteriorate. We are taking steps through the local government finance settlement to address that. More information on that will come shortly. Further local government reorganisation is an opportunity to streamline public services and get councils on a firmer footing.
Unfortunately, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but I assure him that all the actions we are taking in relation to local government change have finance stability at their heart. He mentioned the work of CIPFA; I take the opportunity to pay tribute to CIPFA and the excellent work it does in helping to support councils. We will take more steps shortly to get councils on a firmer footing.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Local authorities across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been developing proposals for unitary local government. That follows the commitment made in the English devolution White Paper last December and the invitation letters sent to areas last February. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, made with regard to the criteria he mentioned that are in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses received and all the relevant information.
The Government’s criteria for unitary local government set out that new unitary councils should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. We understand the importance of communities having their say on the future of their local public services, so we have been clear about the importance of councils engaging with local residents and organisations as they develop their proposals. I know that the hon. Gentleman led a Westminster Hall debate on these important issues before the summer recess and has been an active part of discussions on local government reorganisations in his area, as we have heard again today.
I am expecting to receive proposals from local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by 28 November, and we anticipate that we will publicly consult on final proposals in the new year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am in a challenging position and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage or provide my view on the specifics that he mentioned, because it would pre-empt future decisions that I have to make under the statutory process. There are clearly strong views locally, which were reflected in his speech. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I am sure I will not need to encourage him and his constituents to make sure that they have their say and feed in their views on the future of local government in their area. The Government want to hear them, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local councillors several times. I am sorry to say that I think being a local councillor has become a bit of a thankless task, whichever party local councillors represent, and our politics has become more fractious. I reiterate what an important job they do in providing people with preventive public services, trying to build our economy and being there for members of the public when they most need it. I will finish by saying a massive thank you to all the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in my constituency and right across the country. They do a fantastic job.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government reform in Cambridgeshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Following the publication of the English devolution White Paper in December 2024, on 5 February Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s district councils were invited to develop proposals for the introduction of unitary authorities within the county, expected to come into effect in April 2028. A detailed collective proposal for what the future unitary authorities in Cambridgeshire should look like is to be submitted to the Government by 28 November.
I applied for this debate to outline the sizeable concerns in Huntingdonshire about local government reorganisation. These concerns are potentially echoed across other areas of Cambridgeshire, and I encourage other MPs to whom I have spoken about the proposals also to voice their concerns.
Cambridgeshire residents have been presented with just three options on which to give their opinions. Proposal A is referred to as the north-west, south-east option, with Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland in the north, and Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the south. Proposal B is the north-south option, with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together, and then Peterborough combined with everywhere else—Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. Proposal C is east-west, with Peterborough, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in the west, and Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire in the east.
These proposals were apparently narrowed down from six options. However, these have not been published, and it is difficult to know, even as an MP, how they were decided and why the possibility of a breakdown by Westminster constituency, county division or district council ward was ruled out. My own Huntingdonshire district council stated that:
“We are taking an evidence-based approach. Inevitably, the different needs and local identities of our areas will have a significant impact on the preference of our own councils, and we must respect that”.
However, what evidence is there? The consultation by each of the district councils appears to be little more than a paper exercise. How are residents expected to feed back an informed decision regarding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of local government without any actual information on what the impact of expressing their preference might mean? Martin Hassall, the independent councillor for Buckden, Diddington and Southoe, said:
“The proposals are complex, poorly communicated, and offer little reassurance that the end result will mean better services or genuine value for money.”
In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said:
“We expect there to be wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”
But how can Cambridgeshire’s district councils credibly be expected to develop a robust proposal without realistically understanding the preferences of their residents? The only feedback prior to the final proposal being submitted is an engagement survey that bears little resemblance to the three options that have been put forward. They are in effect situating the estimate, having already decided one of three answers, and will tailor the results to fit.
How will the Government ensure that any decision reflects the wants and needs of local residents? Moreover, if the Government overrule the proposals submitted by the council, upon which evidence will they ensure that the voices of local people are considered?
The Huntingdonshire district council website says:
“All proposals will be assessed against all the criteria in the invitation. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence. That evidence will include information provided by the councils as part of their proposals, representations received during the statutory consultation, and other relevant information available”.
A written answer to me on Friday said:
“a consultation could be launched in early 2026, likely closing at some point after the May local elections”.
Could the Minister clarify whether impacted residents across Cambridgeshire will have their say? If so, is the late May date the first opportunity they will have? If the statutory consultation is not until after next year’s local elections, can we assume that district council elections in Huntingdonshire will definitely go ahead?
The Government are in the process of botching this local government reorganisation with their hands-off approach. Every question to the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has so far been met with a deflection to the relevant local authority, but this has left a situation where local authorities seem unsure of the detail, local residents have endless unanswered questions, and we are on the cusp of making enormous changes that will have a lasting impact on people’s lives, their prospects and their quality of life, all because nobody had bothered to think through the detail.
In March, a joint statement from council leaders across Cambridgeshire stated:
“We look forward to further discussions with each other and with government, and when the time is right, with residents, Members of Parliament and our partners”.
When will Members of Parliament be engaged on the initial proposal? I have not been engaged thus far, and I do not believe any of Cambridgeshire’s other MPs have been officially engaged either. What is the plan? I appreciate that is more of a rhetorical question than one for the Minister, but the point still stands. I am sure this debate will be watched by council leaders, and some of my questions are more for their benefit.
Last week, I wrote to each councillor in my Huntingdon constituency to seek their input on the potential impact of the changes, and hon. Members will hear a selection of quotes peppered throughout my speech. I was very pleased to receive a range of responses from across the political spectrum, with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors highlighting their concerns. Councillor Nathan Hunt, Liberal Democrat, Huntingdon East ward, said:
“throughout the process, communication from central government seems to have lacked required detail and has generally been poor”.
It is highly notable that, despite our political differences, the responses highlighted the same broad concerns: a rushed process, short timelines, lack of rigour, unclear criteria, poor communication, inadequate information, analysis and evidence, and no clear identification of what is best for residents.
The engagement survey currently in flight, led by East Cambridgeshire district council as communications lead, is not clearly signposted or easy to locate. It will be interesting to see once it closes whether there has been significant uptake. There has been no indication from Huntingdonshire district council of whether there is a minimum viable response rate. If sufficient responses are not received, will they be considered at all? Will that extend to the whole of Cambridgeshire and to other district councils? Prior to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority mayoral election in May, a booklet was sent to every household, so why has a similar effort not been made to engage residents with a posted survey? Most people have no idea that the local government reorganisation is happening, and that is as much the fault of the Government as of the local authority.
The engagement survey closes on Sunday 20 July, so in less than two weeks, residents in my constituency and across Cambridgeshire will have had what initially appears to be their only opportunity to influence the process, and it will have passed most of them by. The three shortlisted options were sadly published only as maps and with no additional information, and all local authorities published the same survey at the same time. To what extent will the Government take into account the results of the engagement survey from residents in each district council area? To what extent will the Government take into account the submission from the district councils regarding the preferred option? If the Government decide that they simply do not like the unitary structure proposed by the Cambridgeshire district councils, which criteria will they use to override them and impose their own solution?
It is inconceivable that residents are being asked to make a decision on the future structure of Cambridgeshire without any financial information. No information is publicly available that compares the finances of councils, and we have seen no information on council income, expenditure, debt or council tax.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My neighbour and hon. Friend is making an extremely effective case illustrating just how cosmetic the consultation is. His councillors’ concerns are shared by councillors in Fenland. Specifically, there is no detail on the different assets of local authorities, and no detail on key services that matter hugely. In Fenland, for example, we have free car parking. It is strongly valued by residents, but there is no indication of how that would be protected. There is no alignment across the strategies. The council tax relating to Fenland has been frozen for the last seven years, but the approach in Peterborough has been very different. This lack of detail makes the consultation deeply flawed, and my hon. Friend is right to set out his concerns.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I will come on to the division of assets. There is such a staggering lack of detail that I do not know how residents can possibly hope to make a good decision based on all the information.
To gain an insight into the current finances, I have had to turn to the House of Commons Library, a resource to which the vast majority of people do not have access. Huntingdonshire, which my Huntingdon seat sits completely within, is the second largest non-metropolitan district council in the country. Last year, it had a negligible notional overspend, with a £2.175 million contribution to general reserves. It also has £35 million in the earmarked general fund reserves. To our north, Fenland has a growing budget shortfall from an overspend of £350,000 last year to a projected £1.4 million this year, rising to over £4.5 million by 2029-30. Nearby Peterborough has a projected budget gap of £4.1 million next year and £7.3 million the following year.
It is unacceptable that my constituents should have to bail out the spiralling debts of other councils. This would see revenue raised in Huntingdonshire being largely spent elsewhere. Cambridgeshire residents should be aware of the projected budgetary overspend of these councils before they are asked to express a preference on how they would like the new unitary authority to be structured. It is frankly irresponsible for councils to gloss over the financial implications of this decision without full transparency.
From the look of the finances as they stand, Huntingdonshire could well find itself propping up financially unviable unitary authorities, meaning that the work we have done and are doing to make Huntingdonshire a fantastic place to live and work may be undone, with revenue raised here used to pay for services elsewhere. Councillor Ian Gardener, Conservative, Alconbury and Kimbolton division, said:
“The major concern for me is that HDC could lose control of its well managed financial reserves, which could be used to mitigate the losses of less well run councils in the newly formed unitary authorities. Which would be to the detriment of HDC residents.”
Councillor Simon Bywater, Conservative, Sawtry and Stilton division, said:
“There is a real risk that HDC’s reserves could be pooled and redirected…forcing them to subsidise areas that may not have shown the same level of financial responsibility.”
What steps do the Government plan to take to implement a pre-nup so that current districts are protected? If they choose not to do so, we are likely to see a spending splurge, lest we have to spend money elsewhere after the reorganisation. It is imperative that it is clearly explained to residents how the different combinations of district councils will look from a financial perspective. How will the assets and liabilities of Cambridgeshire county council be disaggregated? On the one hand, a lot of the assets are held in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge city, including development opportunities; on the other hand, there is circa £450 million-worth of damage on Fenland’s roads. Are assets and liabilities to be shared equally or kept in their geographical location?
I am keen to hear from the Minister on whether the Government will write off any of the debt currently held by district councils or the county council. What work have the Government done to look at how that will be distributed? Can he address my concern that this is being hidden from the general public, and that it should be made statutory that finances, particularly inherited debt, be published? To that end, what transitional support will be available to new unitaries that inherit significant debt, or are projected to inherit significant debt, between the decision this year and the implementation in 2028 and beyond?
Furthermore, a new funding system will be implemented in the 2026-27 financial year, with fundamental changes in the needs distribution, council tax equalisation and, crucially, a business rates baseline reset. It is therefore essential to model the proposed options on these forthcoming changes in order to understand how they will impact each unitary in 2028. Initial independent modelling suggests that Cambridge city council may lose 25% of total resources and South Cambridgeshire district council 35%—combined losses of £18 million due to the baseline reset.
That illustrates just how important a published impact assessment will be. To date, no impact assessment has been published. Cambridgeshire residents have no idea how local services will be impacted, for better or worse. Given that the issue is regularly raised by constituents in my mailbag, it is difficult to see how councils could fail to engage with their MPs as key stakeholders. We have no idea how the differing combinations of district and county council wards and divisions will be affected.
How will the new unitary authority boundaries affect school places? Will parents suddenly find themselves outside the catchment areas for their desired schools? Will a school on the other side of the unitary boundary suddenly no longer be an option? How will special educational needs and disabilities provision work? Will the two new unitaries be resourced adequately to enable the timely provision of education, health and care plans? Cambridgeshire currently has a terrible reputation for meeting the statutory timeframe.
Social care is a key factor and consideration for any new unitary authority. Cambridgeshire as a whole is lucky in that it has lower social care needs than many other areas of the country. However, given how other formulae work against Cambridgeshire, owing to the area’s population growth outstripping the outdated modelling for these formulae—often by 10 to 20 years, when we look at the Carr-Hill formula, fire and rescue service funding formula or police allocation formula—the impact of social care costs on Cambridgeshire should not be underestimated, even if the relative needs formula looks more favourable. With regard to the proposed options, what consideration will district councils be obligated to give to service scale versus financial viability?
From a healthcare perspective, we have already seen that Cambridge and Peterborough integrated care board is set to merge with Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB and Hertfordshire ICB. The 10-year health plan, announced only last week, makes it clear on page 13 that, under the proposals for a new operating model, the Government
“will streamline how local government and the NHS work together and make ICBs coterminous with strategic authorities by the end of the plan”.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Part of the Government’s plan for local government reform is to align the ICBs with new mayoralties, as he just mentioned. Does he share my concern that the plan to merge Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB with Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Milton Keynes, despite there being no plans for a mayoralty to cover that area, is a complete waste of time and money that could be better spent fixing local healthcare gaps and patient care?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. We saw that only last week, when the 10-year health plan was rolled out. The Government would have known full well that this contradicted their previous stance. How does the Government’s merging three ICBs together to make one of the largest in the country chime with the need to reorganise those same ICBs to reflect the 10-year health plan? Can the Minister confirm what the future of the new mega-ICB that includes Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will be under local government reorganisation? Currently, this is completely contradictory.
Analysis of the proposed Greater Cambridge unitary of Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire has shown that it would have a high share of total relative needs formula from environmental, protective and cultural services. Greater Cambridge would have the highest total share after the City of London, and it would be ahead of Westminster. The same analysis shows that the balance of service in any unitary containing Cambridge city would be very focused on non-demand-led services, and thus there would be a greater share of service delivery based on resident services and services for visitors and commuters.
Huntingdonshire district council states on its website that the new unitary authority should have a population of around 500,000, though that has since been confirmed by the Minister as a “guiding principle”, not a target:
“We understand the need for flexibility, especially given our ambition to build out devolution and take account of housing growth”.
Given the proposed housing growth across Huntingdonshire, it is vital that the council does not max out the population size.
Huntingdonshire’s projected growth shows that it will be one of the fastest-growing regions in the fastest-growing county, but with several parts of Cambridgeshire expected to grow in the near term, with an increasing tax base and business rates, what modelling have the district councils conducted to ensure that the proposals put to the general public are balanced? The Government have suggested that population size is the main measure of sustainability for new unitaries, but to what extent has the projected growth been factored into those current proposals, particularly on the question of whether two or three unitaries would be preferable within Cambridgeshire? Even if the option were taken for three smaller unitaries, each between 275,000 and 300,000 people, what assessment has been conducted to ascertain the population size of each unitary in 2028, when they would actually come into effect? Furthermore, what would their size be once we see some of the projected growth? We could easily see the new smaller unitaries approach the 350,000 minimum size quite quickly.
Between 2021 and 2041, the Greater Cambridge unitary is projected to grow from 318,000 to 381,000. We could potentially see comparative growth across other parts of Cambridgeshire, where development continues at pace. In Huntingdon alone, we will see another 4,000 houses built at Alconbury Weald, with no commitment from the Government regarding a new east coast main line station at Alconbury Weald—a request I have made multiple times. I have discussed that with the Transport Secretary and asked for the current status of the plans from Network Rail, sadly to no avail. We will likely see up to 4,500 homes at RAF Wyton, now that the surplus Ministry of Defence land there has been designated as an MOD Trailblazer site. Between the two, we also have potential development at Hungary Hall. In excess of 10,000 homes in the area potentially means 20,000 to 40,000 additional people over the next 10 to 20 years. Coupled with the new defence technology cluster nearby, the travel to work areas will likely change dramatically. Going forward, we will potentially see Huntingdon as a centre of employment rather than a dormitory town for Peterborough, Cambridge or even London.
In 2032, we should theoretically be due a constituency boundary review. We will then see further disruption as constituency boundaries straddle new unitary boundaries, meaning yet more burdensome administrative upheaval, potentially leaving residents confused about who is representing them. Can the Minister confirm the smallest size of unitary that the Government will accept? To what extent will the Government include projected growth in their decision-making process, and over what period? In the event that current and/or projected growth figures do not meet the threshold, to what extent will a sound business case outlining the financial viability of the unitary take precedence?
There is much to cover on the various pitfalls of LGR—too much to cover today, arguably. There are still significant questions about how new unitaries will affect travel to work from one extreme to another, for those whose work takes them to Cambridge or Peterborough. There are questions about how unitary boundaries will impact school places and catchment areas for pupils close to the boundaries, how the availability of social housing will be impacted by different combinations of districts, with some owning their social housing stock and others not, and how South Cambridgeshire district council’s ridiculous new four-day week for five days’ pay will translate to the new unitary. Will the new unitary be a four-day week, or will those now on four-day week contracts be mandated to work five days? Will the whole thing be ripped up because SCDC will not technically exist any more?
Brett Mickleburgh, Liberal Democrat councillor for Godmanchester and Hemingford Abbots ward, has raised concerns that,
“a unitary authority will have huge seats/divisions with a single councillor struggling under an unreasonable case workload—compounded if they have a cabinet role. I fear the members allowance will only be sufficient to allow those retired, of independent wealth or aspiring career politicians to take office”.
Brett makes an important point. To what extent have the Government considered that? How big will each unitary council seat be? How many councillors will there be? How will the seats be divided and boundaries drawn? Will they be bigger or smaller than the county divisions? Will there be one, two or three councillors per area now that district and county council functions will be merged? Will we have district council elections in 2026? If we do not get an answer until the end of the year, we are doing a disservice to the candidates, who could have had months’ more time in which to campaign.
I could go on. To roll out LGR with such little detail and so few answers does not augur well. It gives me and other Cambridgeshire MPs and councillors little confidence that this will be a smooth transition to larger councils that everybody feels is an improvement on the current structure.
I will leave the last word to one of our local councillors, and my main opponent in last year’s general election, Labour and Co-operative Councillor Alex Bulat for St Ives South and Needingworth division:
“Among all these voices, Huntingdonshire local voices seem sidelined at best, if not ignored at worst.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. She is absolutely right: everyone should feel safe while on public transport. That is why we have developed an ambitious programme to help make the transport network safe for women and girls. The British Transport police use overt and covert policing techniques to target offenders who are using the network, promote the reporting of sexual offences, and have committed to tackling violence against women and girls in their 2025-to-27 policing plan, which, with her experience in this area, she may be interested to discuss with them.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On Friday, my private Member’s Bill is due for Second Reading. It calls for the Government to publish a strategy to tackle interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. The strategy would ensure that male survivors of crimes considered to be violence against women and girls, such as rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence, are given dedicated support, and also prevent male survivors from having to be in spaces that should be for women. Currently, male survivors are to be included in the strategy for women and girls, due to be published this summer. Can the Minister reassure me, and male survivors in desperate need of support, that the Government will introduce a dedicated strategy for men and boys, and if they will not, why not?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. It does affect women and girls more, but I take the points that he raises, and it is important that all people get the support that they need. I look forward to looking closely at his private Member’s Bill.
Chinese Embassy Development
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Ben Obese-Jecty ExcerptsMonday 24th March 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The aspect of the Bill I would like to focus on is the nationally significant infrastructure project reform. This Labour Government claim that their reforms will make
“targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system,”
but that will come as scant consolation to the local residents on the receiving end of the projects being foisted upon them. Having fought for my constituents against a solar NSIP, I know how difficult it will be to navigate for the average person, and the Government appear determined to make it even harder
The Government are moving the goalposts to reach their ideological aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation as a result—no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills, with the Government only assessing zonal pricing, and no firm commitment to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.
This Labour Government have already forced through six solar NSIPs since July, compared with just three under the previous Government. The largest of the three approved by the Conservatives was 1,200 acres; the smallest solar farm approved by this Government is 1,300 acres, while the largest, so far, is 2,800 acres. The current threshold for solar development to qualify as an NSIP is only 50 MW, which has been the case since 2008. While the Government have legislated to raise the existing solar threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW, it is still a laughably low bar. Point 2.10.17 of national policy statement EN-3 clearly states that
“a solar farm requires between 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output.”
Such a low threshold will potentially allow hundreds of acres of good-quality farmland to be brought into scope.
Cambridgeshire is seen as a target-rich environment by the Government. We have already seen the Sunnica energy farm approved in the east of the county, and now East Park solar farm has been proposed in my constituency on an excessive scale—it is bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres and spanning six miles. Nearly 75% of the site is graded as best and most versatile land.
In answer to a written question about how many consented nationally significant infrastructure projects use greater than 50% best and most versatile land. I was told by the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is in his place, that
“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land.”
Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State on the same point, quoting point 5.11.34 of the national policy statement—that he should
“ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification”—
he suggested that
“the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 164.]
But will they?
The Government have pledged to achieve a target. They have moved the goalposts to make that target easier to achieve and stacked the deck in their favour at the expense of local residents, suggesting that achieving the goal
“is going to require our NSIP system to be firing on all cylinders.”
The Government will remove the requirement to consult category 3 people, who would be able to make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, while maintaining the requirement for notification at the acceptance stage. The first that residents will know about land being taken from them is after an application has already been accepted.
The illusion of statutory consultation appears to be nothing more than lip service. For all the questions I have asked—written questions, oral questions—I have not once heard a response from the Government that the views of local people will be taken into account nor explaining how the highest-graded land will be protected from development. I note that in her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government would be protecting agricultural land, but gave no detail on that. I would be interested to hear what the Government are going to do.
It is particularly telling that the forthcoming solar road map will not break cover until after the Bill has progressed. Yet again, it appears that this Government will do anything to achieve their plan for change without any thought to the consequences of said change.
The Bill requires the national policy statements to be updated every five years, but those providing policy guidance on energy infrastructure were last published in January 2024. Although that should mean they will not be updated again until 2029, the Bill proposes that Parliament can make changes to the NPSs outside the rhythm of those updates. Given the clear desire of the Government to force through NSIPs wherever possible, my concern is that they are being given a window of opportunity to implement rolling tweaks in order to manipulate the NSIP process to better suit their own agenda.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali
Effective regulation of political finance is crucial for maintaining trust in our electoral system and our democracy. The UK already has a strong framework that makes clear that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations, but the Government committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules on donations to political parties in order to protect our democracy from foreign interference. We will bring forward proposals in due course.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
I confess that that is a question to which I do not have the answer. The Government intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards, and it sounds like this issue, which I think came up in the debate on a private Member’s Bill on Friday, is one that we need to consider. I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and have a further discussion about it.
English Devolution
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon
This was one of the reasons why we were so keen to complete the map of the north of England. Most would accept that strategic transport, certainly, crosses county boundaries. If we think about connectivity in the north of England, how Lancashire, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region, Cheshire, Cumbria and the rest are joined up, and then even into Yorkshire, requires co-ordination. We want mayors and strategic authorities to work together across that pan-region, so that even more powers can be devolved to address the type of issues that my hon. Friend talks about.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
According to the White Paper, a constituency like mine will see Cambridgeshire county council and Huntingdonshire district council merged into a unitary council as the principal authority, under Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority as the strategic authority. How will unitary councillors fulfil the roles of multiple district and county councillors in a part-time capacity, and what does it also mean for the forthcoming combined authority mayoral election in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?
Jim McMahon
The forthcoming election for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will go ahead as planned. There is no proposal to change the boundary of what is currently a combined authority that will move to being a strategic authority. Local government reorganisation where there is an existing mayoral combined authority, providing that it is coterminous in terms of the review it has undertaken, will not have an impact at all. All that happens is the membership of the combined authority will change to reflect the new council structures as they appear.
Building Homes
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister today launched the NPPF in my constituency of Huntingdon, at Alconbury Weald. However, that development was planned and built under the previous Government and phases 2 and 3 will see a further 4,000 homes and significant brownfield development at scale, but it has nothing to do with the revised NPPF. It is a shame the Deputy Prime Minister did not travel the extra couple of miles down to the Envar medical waste incinerator approved by the Minister on her behalf, against local wishes, a couple of months ago.
The Minister talks about guaranteeing infrastructure. When I asked the Government about a new east coast main line station to support the 6,500 homes at Alconbury Weald, they fobbed me off with talk of an internal review. How will the NPPF unlock the infrastructure that large developments desperately need?
Matthew Pennycook
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on that point.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
I agree that we should be moving towards doing everything we possibly can to be efficient, and there will be consultations on that issue. One of the things that shocked me in bringing this Bill forward was that the standards are so low for some; we need to really ramp them up. The bottom line for me in bringing this Bill forward is that people should have safe, secure homes that are free from hazards. We can then build on that. We are doing much more as a Government on our ambitions to do that, working with landlords.
The database, alongside greater guidance and support from the Government, will also help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties. Good landlords should be supported and helped. In addition, the database will provide local authorities with the information that they need in their enforcement activities to drive out rogue landlords. In this Bill, I have also taken steps to support local government in its crucial role in keeping tenants safe and rooting out bad actors from the sector. That is why, as well as setting up the database, the Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to root out and punish the small number of landlords who deliberately flout the law, and will increase the maximum civil penalties, so that we punish offenders and further support local authorities.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Where I previously lived, there was a huge number of illegal houses in multiple occupation. Those residents are potentially not protected by this legislation. In giving local authorities more enforcement powers against rogue landlords, how exactly will we define a rogue landlord, and protect people who will potentially be off the radar?
Angela Rayner
There are separate rules for HMOs, but we are also extending ringfenced civil penalties to support councils more, because we need to make sure that there is enforcement. A database will be important when we are looking at what we face, and also in making sure that we can take action. The problem is not every landlord. Most landlords act in a reasonable way, but we need to make sure that action is taken against those who do not.
We recognise the important role that tenants play in holding their landlords to account, and we want to incentivise them to do so. That is why we have significantly strengthened rent repayment orders. To empower tenants to take direct action against unscrupulous landlords, the Bill will add new rent payment order offences, double the maximum penalty for offences, and ensure that offenders will more often pay the maximum penalty. When landlords break the rules, tenants must have recourse to action.
Finally, I want to mention pets. It is a shame the Speaker is not here, because this was my bit for him! Our reforms are aimed squarely at improving the lives of people and families, but I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that pets are not just animals but family. That is why this Bill will make it easier for tenants to request the ability to have a pet in their home. It will also allow landlords to require insurance covering pet damage, so that everyone is covered and no one is left unfairly out of pocket.