Local Government Reorganisation

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I invite the Minister to be open and candid with the House. Could she tell us what discussions there have been and what views, opinions, advice or instructions have been issued to her, her fellow Ministers or special advisers by the political advisers in No. 10?

[Alison McGovern]

As I have mentioned a few times, we have had representations from councils about their capacity. Of course we discuss these issues as Ministers and as part of the Government, and those discussions happen in the usual way, as the hon. Member would expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is about the reply I got to my question. I have it on very good authority that these decisions have been taken by political advisers in No. 10, and the Minister did not deny that. Could she clarify whether I am right to take away that impression, or could she be more open and candid with the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. I am reluctant to allow continuation of debate via the mechanism of points of order, unless the Minister wishes to respond.

Local Elections

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Yes. It is easy to plough on, but we care about the outcome we are trying to deliver, and about ensuring that at the end of this process, we have strong local government, strong strategic authorities and effective mayors. That matters for the people we are here to serve, so I will never regret us taking decisions that have that approach at their heart.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does this latest and inconsistent decision underline that the whole of LGR and devolution is in a state of total chaos? The Government must be rueing the day that they bought the Department’s line that imposing a metropolitan concept on counties and the countryside was the right thing to do. Can the Minister explain, for example, why it was logical to cancel the district council elections last year, but not this year? Where is the logic in that? Is it not about time that she got together with her colleagues and cancelled this whole process, to save money, and so that people can get back to their jobs of running better social services, filling in potholes, and delivering for their local communities, as the excellent Tendring district council does?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We believe in unitaries; whether it is Cheshire or the other unitaries across the country, we can see that they deliver for people. I come back to the reason why we are doing this, and the fact that it takes some cheek for Conservative Members to say, “The status quo is fine.” The status quo is not fine—it is the Conservative party’s mess, created over 14 years, and Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame. We are acting and responding, because the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable and will not deliver for the people we are all here to serve.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.

Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.

Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. That is why we are going through a process in which local areas are coming up with proposals, and consulting constituent authorities and their communities. We will then make a decision based on those proposals.

It is very clear that this Bill is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but it is not one that we intend to use; it will be used only in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment, and all areas in that process are engaging. Proposals are coming forward, and we will make decisions based on those proposals.

At the heart of the reorganisation is an objective: to have local authorities that are more sustainable and that can deliver for their local people. That is the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

May I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place? We spent a long time together on the Bill Committee, working cross-party, along with many other Members on both sides of the House. They included the Statler and Waldorf of the Committee, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), whose heckling of me throughout the sittings was very welcome. [Hon. Members: “More!”] A number of Members are saying “More!” from a sedentary position.

The Minister was bombarded with what I would argue are excellent amendments tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but I think she has been taking a leaf from the book of her colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning. Much of her response to amendments tabled by me—and by the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, some of her own colleagues who wanted to see movement from the Government—was that she would “reflect”. She would reflect in order to make the Bill better, and she would reflect on whether she could make it better by accepting amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. Instead, she has reflected on nothing. Instead, she has brought us a Bill to which she has tabled a small number of amendments that the Government want, but any other amendments tabled by other parties have been completely ignored.

Just to show how unprepared the Government were today, let me point out that most of the Committee stage was taken up with discussion of Government amendments, because this Bill from a Government who wanted to govern in the interests of the people was so riddled with holes that they spent most of the time discussing their own proposals, rather than those of the Opposition.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Today the Government put forward 23 of their own amendments, which meant that the Minister allowed less than a minute for each one in her speech. That includes two new schedules. Moreover, we have still not seen a great deal of the regulation that will flow from the Bill, even in draft form. Is this Bill ready, in any way?

[Paul Holmes]

The answer is clearly no, because otherwise it would not have had as many holes as it had in Committee, and it would not have as many holes as it has today. If it were a Bill from a Government who genuinely sought cross-party co-operation on what could be a very exciting programme of devolution for local authorities and people throughout the country, the Minister and the Government would have looked more seriously at some of the excellent amendments and new clauses tabled by Members from all parts of the House, although not by the Minister’s own Back Benchers.

I am a big fan of the Minister, but when I intervened on her earlier, she showed some anger, which is not typical of her. She tried to object when I said that as a result of her local government reorganisation programme, councils across the country will be forced to reorganise, even if they do not want to. There is a backstop that the Minister said she did not want to use, but when she winds up the debate, I ask her to confirm what she refused to confirm in Committee—that if local authorities do not want to reorganise, she will force them to do so. It is about time the Government came clean about that, so that local authority leaders throughout the country know what they will have to deal with, and know that they will have a gun against their head and will be forced to reorganise, rather than getting on with delivering efficient services, as they try to daily.

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend absolutely knows her constituency. We have tried to ensure, both today and in Committee, that local authority leaders can choose who they work with. They should not be forced to do things by a Minister behind a desk in Whitehall, but that is what this Minister and this Department are doing. It is shameful. It is not what Members on both sides of the House want, and it is not what local authority leaders want—and they know best. I ask the Minister to look at that compulsion again.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful; my hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous.

I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief, but I did not have a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. The regulations have not been written to show how the neighbourhood panels, or whatever they are called, will be created, but the Bill contains sweeping powers to direct how those neighbourhoods should be constructed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine, rather than its being determined by Ministers?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and, indeed, in the Bill, there are plenty of other examples—which we discussed in Committee—of the Government not genuinely devolving to mayors, local authorities and combined authorities powers that they would actually quite like, but giving them the powers that they want them to have, while taking other powers away. That is not true devolution, and the Government should look again at delivering true devolution throughout the United Kingdom.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I do not think that anyone could criticise my work ethic, but reorganising a third of England and the 20 million residents affected would be quite a reorganisation to deliver. As things stand, there is no intention of reorganising Birmingham, but there is absolutely an intention of resolving the underlying trade union dispute, getting people back to work, and reaching an agreement that is acceptable.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I point out that the strike started under this Labour Government, and under a Labour council—and despite all the Minister’s hand-wringing and anguish, the strike continues under a Labour Government, and under a Labour council? It is futile for the Government to pretend it is all somebody else’s fault, least of all the fault of the previous Government. Will the Minister avoid misrepresenting what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said? He made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the Minister should reinstate the legislation that would allow agency workers to be brought in to pick up rubbish off the streets of Birmingham. Why will the Minister not do that? Because he is pussyfooting around and kowtowing to his Labour paymasters, the trade unions.

[Jim McMahon]

That certainly gets the award for the silliest question yet. There is no kowtowing or bowing. We played this with an absolutely straight bat in the interests of the people of Birmingham, as they would expect. On agency workers, our judgment is that they are not required, because the mutual aid from neighbouring councils and housing associations, and the redeployment of frontline staff from elsewhere in the council, has dealt with the waste that accumulated. We have seen 26,000 tonnes of waste cleared. As I said, now that trucks are leaving the depot as usual in most cases, more tonnes per day are being collected than during regular times, so the council is on top of this. There is no need to bring in additional agency staff in the way that the hon. Gentleman says.

Coastal Communities

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I do not need to repeat everything he said, because it all applies in spades to my constituency, which is very much a coastal constituency, which includes not just Harwich, but Manningtree, Mistley, Brightlingsea, and West Mersea. Those are all places of varying economic prosperity, but I wish particularly to talk about Harwich because it is so typical of what has happened to very prosperous Victorian port towns, where glorious terraces of grand houses would be worth millions if they were near London, but instead they are bedsit territory for some of the most unfortunate in our society who find themselves getting off the train and looking for somewhere to stay.

Having said that, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said in his opening remarks—I thank him for securing this important debate, although obviously we have much too short a time—these places are full of potential. Harwich is a unique historic town. It is where the Mayflower sailed from in 1620. The captain of the Mayflower lived in Harwich, and his house is now a museum. When we say to the Americans, “Do you realise that you originally came from Harwich?” their eyes are opened. They think it is all about Plymouth, but they are not right. When we tell them what they could come and see, and that instead of some fake Victorian steps, they could come and see the real house of the captain of the Mayflower, they are amazed. It was an important Napoleonic port, it grew from a wonderful medieval naval base to being a very important naval base during the first and second world wars, and the entire German submarine fleet was gathered in the estuary.

Harwich is full of potential. We have the freeport, the offshore wind industry and wonderful manufacturing businesses, providing stable employment to their workforces. The place is full of potential, but I worry that without being championed by our own Tendring district council, which has done a marvellous job but is being lined up for abolition, we will not get the same support. When he winds up, will the Minister assure us that coastal communities will get the same support, under the new local government set-up, that they have always enjoyed from their district councils? I have my doubts, I am afraid, so I would be most grateful if he can address that.

English Devolution and Local Government

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to categorise what the Conservatives have done to local authorities, and it is not party political to say that; many councils of all different political persuasions will say that the way the previous Government went about local government was not to respect them and not to fund them. We recognise the vital public services that local government delivers and we recognise what it does. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will be setting out our plans to give sustainable funding for local government into the future, because we recognise that local government is vitally important and consider its work to be critical to this Government’s mission.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I invite the Secretary of State to publish the evidence that the local government reorganisations will actually, in the long run, save money? There is none, unless she can publish hard evidence. May I also ask her to heed the warnings of the Chair and former Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) respectively—who warn about the disruption of abolishing two-tier local government; that it will be a mess; and that the Secretary of State will have to fund that mess out of central Government funding, because otherwise there will be more cuts in public services to pay for the reorganisation? Which is it to be?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman should speak to his colleagues in Dorset, because they have made savings and they understand what local government reorganisation can deliver. We have seen that up and down the country. His party used to believe in devolution, and we have seen how that can deliver for local areas and we can save money. This is not just about saving money, however; this is about creating devolution and pushing power out of Whitehall into the town halls so that mayors and local authorities can deliver public services that are responsive to local areas’ needs. That is what we are trying to deliver from the bottom up, working with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should get on board.

A133-A120 Link Road

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call Sir Bernard Jenkin to move the motion and the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I have been informed that two hon. Members have been given permission by the mover and the Minister to speak in the debate.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government funding for the A133-A120 link road.

Thank you very much, Mr Stringer. There may even be a third intervention from a colleague, which I hope will be all right with you. I should have notified you in advance, for which I apologise. I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate regarding the further funding of the new A1331 link road.

The top line is that central Government must fund phase 2 of this road. The previous Government committed to do so, and provided 100% grant via a housing infrastructure fund grant of £99.9 million in 2020. Since then covid and inflation have struck, and the grant is now £50 million to £60 million short of what is needed to complete the road. That estimate is hearsay and not official, but it does not seem unreasonable.

Essex county council has started the construction of phase 1 but phase 2 is not funded. The Government’s housing targets for Colchester and Tendring cannot be met without this vital new road. This development of 7,500 new homes is very substantial, but I support and understand the need for it. However, the development cannot be justified unless the road is completed in advance. Indeed, without completion of the road, the developers may well stop investing in the houses because the traffic will be intolerable and the new homes found to be unsaleable.

The proposed Tendring Colchester Borders garden community—or TCBGC—located between the A120 and the A133 north of the University of Essex, includes new primary and secondary schools, dedicated employment spaces, a nature reserve and a commitment to 30% affordable housing. The new homes will generate a huge increase in traffic. The new direct access to the A120 and the A133 is essential for the viability of the development. It will also significantly mitigate local adverse traffic impacts, both during the construction phase and as the new homes are occupied.

The whole project now hinges on phase 2, which will complete the link to the A120. Without phase 2 the A1331 will be a road to nowhere, and only add to traffic on already congested roads. There is no viable or agreed funding for phase 2. I hope I do not have to disabuse the Government of that fact. Many councillors and local people fear that phase 2 will never be completed. So far, the Government have told the county council, “There is no budget” for any additional funding.

My first question is this: will the Government please now consider making up the shortfall? I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 11 November and received a reply just last night. These debates have a purpose: they provoke a response. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter, in this case from Baroness Taylor, in which she states:

“Essex county council and Latimer (the housing developer) have committed to use reasonable endeavours to procure delivery of phase 2…And in order to safeguard its delivery, there is a planning policy requirement for the developer to demonstrate funding is in place for the full link road.”

I put it to the Minister that this really is wishful thinking. Think about it: 7,500 homes and a £60 million contribution to finish phase 2—that is £8,000 per home, and that is just for the road. Where is all the other section 106 funding required for this development going to come from?

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate.

In November 2024 I had the pleasure of joining partners from Essex county council, Colchester city council, Latimer, Clarion Housing and Homes England, as well as contractors, to see the start of phase 1 of the link road. As the hon. Member rightly said, it is just phase 1, and we need phase 2 to be completed. Speeding up phase 2 by creating a deal with those partners, including the Government, will be a vital part of that. I hope he will support initiatives around that, as we have already been having those kinds of discussions. I also invite the Minister to visit the project to see just how short a link road will be required to complete what will be an outstanding development that straddles both our constituencies.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Lady is clearly keener on the development than I am, but if the Government come up with some money to make this whole development viable again, I will of course resume my support for it. I would also very much welcome a visit from the Minister, but it remains to be seen whether we will get one. I am afraid that I refused to attend that event in November because I thought it was irresponsible to start a road if nobody knew how it would be funded or when it would be completed. The Minister may, in her response today, refer to a December memorandum of understanding on this matter between Essex county council, the Colchester and Tendring councils and Latimer, but I have to point out to her and to the Department that this is not a binding agreement. Paragraph 1.6 states that the funding of infrastructure, including the A1331 link road, is contingent, and that it

“will only be possible if the overall delivery of TCBGC is financially viable.”

Remember that it is £8,000 per home just for the road. TCBGC will no longer be financially viable. Financial contributions through section 106 will not be enough to cover the cost of phase 2 of the road along with all the other essential infrastructure plans for this development.

What has got to give? Will we finish up with more GP practices closing their lists and not accepting more patients, or more schools without places for local kids? Section 106 funding should be for local infrastructure, not for national infrastructure such as this proposed new A road. The clue is in the term “A road”—it is part of the trunk road network. What is the benefit-cost ratio for this new road? The original funding application said 7:1. A 7:1 benefit-cost ratio is well above the threshold of “very high”, which is only 4:1, so this public investment will give very big payback for the local economy, jobs and tax revenues.

Can the Minister provide us with a benefit-cost ration for just phase 1, which the Government have now retrospectively agreed to fund on its own? This was approved via a material amendment to the grant determination agreement that the Government have signed, allowing the county council to build just phase 1 with the grant money so far allocated. The Government agreement makes them complicit in the wishful thinking that this development will be viable. My guess is that the benefit-cost ratio for just phase 1 will be at rock bottom. It will have very little economic benefit at all, and would never have passed muster if it had been proposed as part of the funding arrangements at the outset.

Without knowing what the phase 1 benefit-cost ratio is, how could the Government possibly justify turning down the request for funding to complete the A1331 link road? I speculate that the benefit-cost ratio of finishing the road is off the scale because of the sunk costs already committed. Labour has promised growth and new homes to voters, but with infrastructure first—

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I would have preferred earlier notice of the intervention, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.

[Marie Goldman]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and thank him for giving way. His point is about the importance of infrastructure coming first. Just down the road from the proposed A1331 is the A12 widening scheme, which affects my constituency of Chelmsford, which will potentially affect the delivery of 55,000 new homes, and for which we are waiting for confirmation of funding. Those homes would, of course, go a long way towards meeting the Government’s 1.5 million target. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “infrastructure first” principle is crucial, and that the Government must not overlook it when they are considering funding?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

If the Government want to achieve anything like their 1.5 million target, they will have to put the money up front for the infrastructure. Here is a shovel-ready deal for the Government to show their commitment to achieve their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. If the promised 7,500 new homes are not built because phase 2 of the A1331 is not completed, then Colchester city council and Tendring district council do not have a chance of achieving the Government’s ambition. Without phase 2 of the road being completed ahead of the new homes—which was the original intention—the most likely outcome is that the new garden community will be started and then stalled. There is already standstill traffic every day on the A133 where the southern end of the A1331 is intended to relieve traffic congestion. A few hundred new homes will just add to that gridlock.

In November, in my letter to the Secretary of State, I made it clear that I have not, until now, felt the need to object to this massive housing development in my constituency. I recognise the need for new housing, but my support is contingent on the principle of “infrastructure first”. If there is no new money from the Government and nobody can say when the road will be completed, I will object, and so will the vast majority of the people of Colchester and Tendring. The Government are shifting responsibility on to the developer and local authorities for the road on which the viability of the whole scheme depends. I therefore ask the Minister—although somehow I do not expect a conclusive answer today—to top up the housing infrastructure fund grant so that it covers 100% of the cost, as originally intended, and to publish the benefit-cost ratio of just funding phase 1, so that we can see what poor value limited HIF funding now represents. I also ask the Government to affirm the principle of “infrastructure first”—I hope the Minister can do so—and ask for their acknowledgment that the section 106 money is not appropriate for funding a major piece of national infrastructure. An A road is being proposed here, not a local road, which is why central Government should fund it.

I notified you, very late, Mr Stringer, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might want to add a few words.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate and for highlighting his concerns about this project, and I thank other hon. Members for their interventions. As someone who spent many years securing debates of this form to raise important issues affecting my constituency, I know how much these debates matter to constituency MPs.

The Government recognise that there are significant benefits to high-quality, large-scale developments that deliver much-needed housing. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex acknowledges the importance of housing in communities such as his and those up and down the country. We recognise that the right infrastructure must be put in place first, including the right transport infrastructure. Without that, facilities and transport become overstretched. One of the consequences is congestion and delays for existing residents and commercial traffic.

The housing infrastructure fund was established in 2017, primarily to provide up-front infrastructure funding to support the delivery of large-scale strategic housing developments. The £4.2 billion fund will unlock 260,000 homes, 30,000 of which have already been started, with a further 73,000 completions expected during this Parliament. That will make a significant contribution to the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes, which is a major commitment of this Government—previous Governments also had commitments around house building, recognising the need for housing in our country.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex spoke about the Tendring Colchester Borders garden community project in his constituency. That project is expected to initially unlock 5,000 homes at the garden community, and that figure will increase over time to a total of 7,500. The hon. Member highlighted a number of points, and I will restate some of them. This Government are providing £99.9 million from the housing infrastructure fund for Essex county council to build a rapid transit system high-speed bus route. That will run from the north to the south of Colchester, connecting to the new community. I am pleased to note that that is under construction.

I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Member shared about the second item of infrastructure being funded: the A1331 link road, which will connect the A133 and A120. Over the past few years, infrastructure projects across the country have been affected by a number of unexpected factors, such as the pandemic, rising inflation, the shortage of skilled labour and other external events, and in a constrained fiscal environment the Government have had to make tough decisions.

Due to the escalation of the costs with the Tendring project, it is no longer possible to construct the entire link road with the funding available. Additionally, there continue to be delivery challenges with sections of the road, particularly in relation to land acquisition. In response to the request from Essex county council in 2023, the previous Government made the decision to use the available grant to only fund phase 1 of the link road. I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns about that descoping of the project. I assure him that, together with the first phase of the link road, the existing local road network is sufficient to support 5,000 homes in the garden community. Moreover, I assure him that the intention to deliver the full link remains.

To that end, there is ongoing engagement between Homes England and local partners on the support that will enable the full link road to be delivered as soon as possible. That includes capacity funding to support planning, facilitation of joint working between public and private sector partners, and cross-Government brokerage support, which I hope addresses some of the points the hon. Member raised.

Both Essex county council and the housing developer, Latimer, have committed to use reasonable endeavours to procure delivery of phase 2. Additionally, to safeguard its delivery, there is a planning policy requirement for the developer to demonstrate that funding is in place for the full link road. My Department is also providing support through our new homes accelerator programme, which will help with the pre-planning process for the garden community.

Tendring Colchester Borders garden community is an important project in an area of high demand. The housing infrastructure fund grant is a catalyst for a wider £250 million private sector investment into infrastructure. The new community will include a new country park and significant green and blue infrastructure, promoting sustainable and active travel, a new 25-hectare sports and leisure park to be used in conjunction with the University of Essex, and a new 17-hectare business park for general employment, business and industrial purposes. The Government are committed to the full delivery of the infrastructure originally planned under the housing and infrastructure fund grant.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The Minister is saying one or two interesting things. First, I have never heard anybody say—I wrote down what she said—that the “local road network is sufficient to support 5,000 homes”. I do not know who has told her that, but I promise her that she has been misinformed. On the point she just made about all the other desirable infrastructure for the development, that has to come out of the section 106 money, which will now, according to the MOU, be diverted to the road. Section 106 money is not unlimited. The possible £60 million for the development—to fund that road—is a very large sum. It is £8,000 per household. Why is she convinced that this is still a viable development?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member has set out his critique. What is important is that we get it right, and that requires close working, with him and other hon. Members, and my Department, and that is why the brokerage element of what we do is really important. He makes very important points; we can continue the conversation beyond this debate, as I appreciate that there are a number of complex issues that need to be worked through. However, we are determined to support the development and ensure that it is a success.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have little doubt that the delegated authority of the three combined authorities will be minded to give planning permission come what may. However, I reckon that the decision would be subject to judicial review if the road is not guaranteed at the time of planning permission being granted. It is a policy decision to ensure that the road is guaranteed, but what else is then taken away? That itself will be challengeable under judicial review, given that it will be so far from the original plan. I am grateful to hear from the Minister that she wants the conversation to continue. Long may it continue, and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory solution.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is an extremely diligent Member of this House, with many years of experience, and a great campaigner. He makes important points about planning matters, which obviously I cannot go into, but I look forward to working with him.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. This Government are committed to making sure we deliver on housing, but it is of course extremely important that we continue to work closely with hon. Members to make sure we address the issues that come up. I very much look forward to continuing the discussion with the hon. Member and to ensuring that my Department can do what it can to support a successful way through on this project.

Question put and agreed to.

English Devolution

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

There were three types of programme on the transition to the new Government. The first were the legacy devolution agreements that were agreed under the previous Government but had not yet passed through Parliament, which we wanted to reconcile. The second were the areas that we wanted to target—by and large, areas in the north of England to complete the map of the north and to populate that area. The third was a write-around from the Deputy Prime Minister to get a real sense of where different areas might be on their approach to partnerships, to the type of scale and to the type of geography. We saw the expression of interest process very much as a temperature check, so the proposals that came forward are certainly not binding either on local areas or on the Government. We expect further proposals to come forward, including from the same areas.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

What guarantee can the Minister give that there will be new money from the Treasury to fund the costs of any local government reorganisation in Essex, to avoid the costs of that reorganisation resulting in cuts to public services or increased council taxes?

[Jim McMahon]

That question was raised earlier, and I apologise for not addressing it. The Government will provide capacity to enable both devolution and local government reorganisation through discussions with local authorities. Some of that might be funding, and quite a lot might be support through workforce development. Last week, we launched the workforce development group —a joint project between MHCLG, other Government Departments and bodies such as the Local Government Association—to make sure that we are addressing the workforce issues. Even before the reorganisation, we know that many counties are struggling to recruit to jobs like adult social care and many districts are struggling to recruit to jobs like planning, so there is a bigger issue here that we are looking to address.

Building Homes

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the formal Government response to the consultation, which will be published at the end of this statement, we set out very clearly how we are dealing with local authorities at an advanced stage of plan preparation—both those that will meet the regulation 19 stage requirement and those that will not —and how we will help those with up-to-date plans to top up their housing supply so that they come closer to the new standard method. I share my hon. Friend’s wish that her local authority takes steps to close the gap.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Minister reaffirm the principle of “infrastructure first” in order to get homes built? In Tendring and Colchester, we are planning to build a 9,000-home borders community project, but it can go ahead only if the A1331 is completed, and it has to be funded.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I support that objective, but I gently say that the previous Government had 14 years to address concerns in this area. I remember repeated calls from Conservative Members at the time that the previous Government should get serious about this. We will. There are measures in the framework that support infrastructure delivery, but there is more work to do.

Planning Committees: Reform

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems we have in our planning system is that not enough people engage with applications or, in particular, with the local plan process. We need to ensure that more people are engaged upstream in the production of local plans because, as I said, they are the best way to shape development in a particular local community. There are a number of things we can do, not least through some of the innovations coming forward as a result of the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which has a huge amount of potential in terms of digital planning and how it can allow communities to see spatially the type of development that might come forward in their area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This working paper smacks of having been thought up after a request for options to streamline the planning process. What is the evidence that what planning committees decide is the fundamental obstacle in the planning system? There is no evidence to suggest that these decisions are the problem. The problems are far wider.

The reason why the Government will not succeed in building 1.5 million homes in England and Wales between now and the general election is a far bigger problem. Will the Government produce a comprehensive assessment of all the things that delay house building in this country? We would then see how significant, or insignificant, this figure is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that I stood up today and said, “This is our solution to all the flaws of the planning system in England.” This is one small part of a much wider planning reform agenda. He will know that, in our first month in office, we brought forward very significant changes to the national planning policy framework. We are committed to introducing a planning and infrastructure Bill early next year. This working paper is one small part of a larger agenda, but it is an important part, because we know that planning applications are taking far too long in particular. We need to streamline the process to ensure that we get the homes and places coming forward that our communities need.