Local Government Reorganisation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for Stevenage, and I have had the pleasure of visiting the constituency with him on numerous occasions. He is right to point to the many problems that come with duplication and the benefits of eliminating it. Buckinghamshire council estimates that it costs it £30,000 just to tell people that they have phoned the wrong council. That money will now be available in that county, and similar amounts will be available in other areas going through a reorganisation, to invest in frontline services. That will benefit his constituents.

The way we will measure the benefits of the changes is through improved frontline public services. I have also announced proposals for an outcomes framework and a neighbourhood guarantee, so that my hon. Friend and residents can see for themselves how well their services are performing compared with other councils in the area and across the country.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Essex is a county of nearly 2 million people who are opposed to Labour’s plans by more than two to one, yet in a train-crash statement that has lasted more than an hour, the Secretary of State has not referred to Essex once. What on earth is going on in Essex? We are going to have shadow elections in May, but we may not know until autumn which councils are having the elections. When will we learn what is happening in Essex? Is there any chance at all, given the overwhelming public opposition, that he will drop the whole barmy proposal?

[Steve Reed]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that I made the announcements about Essex in a previous statement—perhaps he was not paying attention, but he should have been. I am sorry, as well, that he is against the savings that this will deliver, which will be invested in the frontline services that his residents will benefit from. When that funding goes in, perhaps he would like to write to his residents to tell them that he opposed the additional funding for those public services, and that it is Labour that put the money in.

[Mr Francois]

What are you doing in Essex?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Francois!

[Mr Francois]

He did not make a—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Is it true that a statement was made in private to Labour councillors and activists in Essex at the weekend? I know this for a fact, because I was told by one of the Labour members who were there, but will the Minister confirm that it is true? Is she also aware that a YouGov poll has shown that, by 56% to 24%, the people of Essex do not want Labour’s plans for local government reform? Let us have a referendum.

[Alison McGovern]

I am now aware of the opinion poll because the right hon. Member mentioned it to me a few moments ago, for which I am grateful. He has mentioned a meeting, which I certainly did not attend. I am sure that if he forwards the details, the Department will be able to look at them, but I certainly was not present at any such meeting.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I truly thank my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the importance of that issue.

Of course, we must all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Words do not feel enough to describe the manner in which she has carried her sister’s legacy forward. She has made this House a far better place than it ever could have been without her, and I hope that she has felt the love today.

The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) talked about community, as so many others did. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) nearly got away with making a speech without dropping herself in it, and talked most powerfully about friendship and the loneliness that we feel, to which Jo was a singular antidote. I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her friendship.

I was glad that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) spoke about her predecessor, and I know that she is carrying forward the work of Caroline Lucas in that same spirit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) talked about our country, and I am glad that he did, but he also mentioned for the first time his personal experience of losing Jo. It is important that we are able in our grief to recognise that part of that grief comes from love, and the love that we have for each other. It is okay to talk about that.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about being a good parliamentarian, which is important for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the 2015 intake—as a 2010-er, I now feel like I missed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) is another 2015-er; I have never felt more disappointed to have been elected five years earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) talked about the Great Llanelli Get Together, which sounds wonderful.

My fellow 2010-er, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), knows about the subject of this debate more than most, and I am proud of her today, as I am every single day. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler): respect—that’s all I can say. We all support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and the way she speaks up. I agree with so much of what she said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) told the House about the Pompey Belles, which I am excited about. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) sounds like she has done amazing things on loneliness in Leicestershire. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) to please give Evie my best; it was a cracking speech—well done.

It was wonderful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) tell her story of friendship with Jo. I know that Jo’s legacy is not just here in this country but in around every corner around the world, and it is wonderful to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) also showed just what an impact Jo had in every way on bringing women forward in our politics. Through all the contributions today, we have heard about the length, breadth and depth of Jo’s legacy, and why we need it now.

I want to make just make one slightly party political point and say that I am sorry Jo was not here with us to see this Labour Government elected, because although much of today’s debate has been cross-party in spirit—and rightly so—Jo was Labour to her core. Her love and determination is in all her friends on the Labour Benches. A feisty feminist, she was the first elected chair of the Labour Women’s Network. She would have been so proud of all the graduates of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, of whom there are 18 in the House—I will not name them all for reasons of time, but they are an incredibly impressive girl gang, and I would not mess with any of them.

I like to think that Jo would have approved of our work to stop violence against women and girls. As a campaigner for children, and having spoken in the House about her educational attainment in her Yorkshire home, I suspect she would also have liked free school meals, new playgrounds, our investment in schools and the child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.

I want to relay some words from the Foreign Secretary. Thinking of Jo as a West Yorkshire neighbour and friend, she recalls that Jo was a true force of nature who radiated purpose and determination and took sheer delight in the joy of life, which is why it is so devastating that she lost her life so young. Our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer added that it falls on all our shoulders to take forward Jo’s work, as she said in the Chamber after Jo died, and we have—most of all my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

What Jo might have made of the fact that my party is yet to elect a woman as its leader, I cannot say. She was a proud trade union member and would have relished voting for new rights at work along with the rest of us.

On 16 June 2026, next week, it will be 10 years since Jo Cox was murdered in her constituency. We all remember her words, which are forever etched on the wall of the Chamber, just below her coat of arms, which is to the left of the Speaker’s Chair; designed by her children, it features intertwined Yorkshire and Lancashire roses, a mountain and the colours of the women’s suffrage movement. The words underneath, “More in Common”, have become a political movement among all of us who believe that the idea of community comes from our values, and not where we happen to be born or what we happen to believe.

At this moment, when some politicians are stirring division and hate, Jo’s legacy has never been more important. In the aftermath of her killing, people were inspired by not just what Jo did, but how she did it. She recognised that the curse of loneliness unites us all, because it could happen to us all, and saw the value in physical activity that would provide a language and connection however different people thought they were. Her activism for Syrian civilians united and corralled people of all political persuasions and none, because there is nothing more obvious and uniting than the fact that children made homeless by falling bombs should have a roof over their heads. Ten years after she was murdered, this type of politics has never been needed more.

If democracy is to succeed at all, it must be on the basis that it is for everyone. Stirring up fear tells people that politics is just for the powerful—just for those who can tolerate abuse or worse. That is not democracy; it is politics by intimidation, and it is the law of the bully.

Ten years after Jo was murdered, “More in Common” cannot just be words on the Chamber wall. It must be the operating principle for all of us who want to sit in the House of Commons. It is the standard to which we hold ourselves, not just a nice idea.

Ten years have passed, but in that time the case for Jo’s arguments has only strengthened. We desperately need people in every part of the UK to feel a part of their community. The hateful rhetoric that is now rife can be stopped only with a proud campaign inspired by Jo and all she stood for—to support our diversity and the idea that we are all equally part of our country, deserving to be heard.

That campaign is this. First, do not hate. No one needs to hate anybody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley told us earlier, as they say in Yorkshire, “If you can’t say anything good, keep your gob shut.” Secondly, be a neighbour. Go to the coffee morning, volunteer, join the sports team.

Thirdly, be brave. I am different from Jo. She was the life and soul of the party, but I am the one in the kitchen talking about econometrics. I never felt, when faced with a challenge, her instinctive ability to just say yes and go for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley reminded me this morning, it is about jumping in at the deep end and finding the shallows afterwards. I learned from Jo to be brave—that’s how you get things done in politics.

The fourth part of the campaign has to be for all of us to fight for our country. The United Kingdom is full of wonderful and good people. They need homes and jobs, and they need some joy in life. They do not need bitterness and hate. They need Jo’s love. If there is a fight to be had in this country, it is a fight for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the legacy of Jo Cox.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today an honourable man has resigned, on a matter of principle, from a Government in disarray. The former Defence Secretary, as he now is, has resigned over the Government’s continuous failure to publish the defence investment plan or even to fund it. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said,

“your DIP financial settlement—which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week—falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time…it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”.

That is four years from now.

We have a war in Ukraine, continued instability in the middle east and a Department in total limbo. The man with day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the nation’s defence has just quit. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any indication that the Government will come to the House before we rise at the conclusion of business today and make a statement on this chaotic situation and who is now in charge of the Ministry of Defence? Similarly, have you been given any indication as to when the Government will now finally, at last, publish the defence investment plan, which is essential for the security of this country? As the first duty of the Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, they must surely come to the House in the next few hours and explain how this dreadful situation will somehow be rectified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not been informed that the Government wish to make a statement on this matter or on the timetable for the publication of the defence investment plan, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Local Government Reform

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Neil O’Brien]

I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets.

It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is very clear from my hon. Friend’s powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire do not want local government reform, and my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford in Essex do not want it either. Has he seen the letter from 16 council leaders from the County Council Network giving a whole host of reasons why it is a bad idea? I would add that it is a Trojan horse that Labour is using to try to cover our green fields in concrete. There is no demand for this. People do not want it. They want to protect their existing local identities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan?

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient.

One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city. I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire.

In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.

Power to Cancel Local Elections

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your Caledonian chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are old friends from the past.

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members when I say that it is always encouraging to see such strong public engagement in our democratic system. The petition has attracted well over 150,000 signatures, right across the United Kingdom. That level of support speaks positively about how our citizens care deeply about the timing, integrity and accountability of local elections. I thank the petition’s creator Dr Chris Barnes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting prior to the debate, and all those who have taken the time to add their name to it.

The petition calls on the Government to remove the Secretary of State’s statutory power to postpone or cancel scheduled local elections. That power is conferred on the Government by section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. Dr Barnes’s petition states that

“the right to vote is sacred and inalienable”,

and he argues that elections due to take place in May 2026 and beyond should proceed as planned. Many signatories have expressed concern that postponement risks undermining democratic accountability and public trust. Last month, the Government did a U-turn on the decision. Regardless, we are here to debate the principle at the heart of the initial decision to delay the elections.

In their official response, the Government make it clear that the relevant powers are set out in legislation passed by Parliament. They state that such powers are

“used only with strong justification”

and that any use is subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the statutory instrument process. The Government have also indicated that they have no current plans to amend the legislation in question. They add that similar powers have previously been used in limited and specific circumstances, including in the context of local government reorganisation. The debate therefore concerns not only the principle of regular elections, but the appropriate balance between statutory flexibility and democratic certainty.

Local elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy. Councillors make decisions on housing, social care, planning, transport and a range of other services that have a direct impact on daily life. I should know, having spent a good number of years as a councillor myself.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the right hon. Member for his customarily incisive intervention.

Local elections surely ensure that decisions are subject to scrutiny and renewal. The expectation that electors will have an opportunity to choose their representatives at predictable intervals is surely fundamental to public confidence. Independent bodies have emphasised that very point. The Electoral Commission has stated that scheduled elections should, as a rule, proceed as planned and should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. It has cautioned that uncertainty around election timing can undermine public confidence and create difficulties for voters, campaigners and administrators alike.

Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern to me about the democratic implications of postponements that significantly extend councillors’ terms. In particular, it has warned that where delays coincide with electoral cycles, some councillors could serve for up to seven years without facing the electorate. O that I had ever had that opportunity in my own career as a councillor! Such extensions risk weakening accountability and should prompt careful review of the safeguards surrounding the Government’s postponement powers.

Those concerns are shared, to varying degrees, across the political spectrum. My own party has argued that local elections should not be treated as administrative conveniences. We have emphasised the importance of protecting fixed and predictable electoral timetables. We have raised questions about the concentration of discretion in the hands of a single Minister. We have called for stronger safeguards and greater transparency where postponement is proposed. Similarly, Conservative Members have underlined the importance of upholding democratic mandates. However, some have reasoned that, once conferred by Parliament, statutory powers must be capable of being exercised where the law so permits.

In response, the present Government have stressed that the powers in question are not new; they were established by Parliament to deal with defined circumstances such as the structural reorganisation of local government. The Government argue that a mechanism must remain to ensure orderly transitions where boundaries change or authorities are merged, and that such decisions are subject to legislative oversight and are not to be exercised arbitrarily. I am sure that we will examine those points more closely in the debate.

Those differing perspectives are united by the shared recognition that elections are not merely procedural events, but the very means by which authority is conferred and renewed. Any decision to postpone them must therefore meet a very high threshold of justification and transparency. It surely must never be motivated by self-interest. That would instil distrust in our democracy, which is very precious to us all.

The petition and the debate that it has prompted reflect broader public anxiety about democratic accountability. In recent years, as we all know, trust in political institutions has been tested. It is therefore understandable that proposals or decisions that affect when voters may next go to the polls attract scrutiny and very strong opinions. At the same time, Parliament has long recognised that exceptional circumstances may require flexibility. The legal framework governing elections is complex, and changes to local authority structures, emergencies or other significant disruptions may necessitate adjustments. The question for this House, however, is not whether elections matter—I trust that all Members of the House believe that—but how best to reconcile the principle of regular democratic renewal with the practical realities of governance.

The petition process exists precisely to enable such questions to be posed and examined. That is why we are here tonight. When substantial numbers of people across the country express concern in a democratic system, as they have done with this petition, Parliament must surely listen. It is right that Ministers have the opportunity to set out clearly the legal basis for the powers concerned, the circumstances in which they may be used and the safeguards that exist. It is equally right that Members on all sides test those explanations where appropriate.

I hope that today’s debate will contribute to clarity, transparency and accountability. I reassure all those who signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously in this debate, because that is precisely what the Petitions Committee is all about. I will listen with the greatest interest to what my colleagues have to say and to how the Minister who is kindly representing the Government responds.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Forster]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for the skilful way in which he introduced this important topic.

The Government’s original reason for postponing the elections was that councils were too busy with local government reform. In Essex, we had the bizarre situation where some of those involved in LGR thought they were not too busy to have elections, and some—mainly Labour-led councils—thought they were.

I served on Basildon council in the early 1990s, when we went around this buoy before, under John Major’s premiership. The idea then was not to have mayors, but to have one unitary system across the county. I was involved in the negotiations between Basildon and other authorities. In the end, to cut a long story short, the whole thing broke down because no one could agree on who to team up with. There were too many old rivalries and too many differences between towns, and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. When I heard we were going around that buoy again, I confess, perhaps based on my previous experience, that I was deeply sceptical. I remember saying to my local Rayleigh and Wickford Conservative association at one of our quarterly executive meetings more than three years ago, “Don’t take it as axiomatic that this will all happen. It fell apart last time; it could yet fall apart again.”

Where are we now? We were supposed to have mayoral elections this May; the Government have postponed them to May 2028. We are supposed to have a mayoral combined authority, so now we face the bizarre position where we would have an unelected combined authority—it is an unelected committee of a handful of senior councillors drawn from several constituent councils—but with no mayor. The fate of the combined authority now appears to be effectively in abeyance.

Labour’s whole argument for doing all of this is to move from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. That is not true. The two-tier system we have at the moment is Essex county council as the upper tier, with a series of district, borough and city councils below. The third tier of parish and town councils are basically unaffected either way. We are now moving to another two-tier system, where we will have a mayoral and a combined authority as the upper tier and a bunch of unitary authorities—whether three or four or five—as the lower tier. We will have gone through all this cost, misery and uncertainty to go from one two-tier system to another. The whole argument is nonsense from the get-go.

Moreover, I have been door-knocking in my constituency for 25 years, and I have never—not once, ever—had an elector say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Members can take it from me: if Essex people want something, they are not shy to let their politicians know. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is grinning; he has obviously experienced that himself. They do not want a mayor of Essex. If they do, they have not said so. It has no demos. There is no public demand for it. People are not clamouring for a mayor. We have never had one in 1,000 years, but suddenly the Government think we need some Sadiq Khan for Essex. That is about as popular as a bowl of—well, it is not very popular.

Where do we now sit? Southend unitary authority—forgive me, it is Southend city council, for which my great friend Sir David Amess campaigned for many years; if he were here, he would chide me now. Southend city council conducted its own consultation about a year ago, and two thirds of the people who replied did not want any change at all. The Government instituted a wider consultation county-wide—for the avoidance of doubt, that is Greater Essex, including Southend and Thurrock—which closed on 15 January. When the Minister replies, perhaps she could tell us, some six weeks on, what the result of that consultation was. If she does not have that information to hand, perhaps she could tell us when she intends to publish the results of the consultation. I am sure that that will be before the local elections—before we get to purdah in the third week of March—so that the good people of Essex know what their fellow county people have said before we go to the polls. I am going to take a punt: it is going to reveal that there was little enthusiasm for any local government reorganisation whatever in Essex. If the Minister wants to prove me wrong, she can publish the results of the consultation.

Labour sought to postpone these elections and now, thanks to campaigning by—I admit—Reform, and by the Conservatives and others, but overwhelmingly due to public pressure, which perhaps both parties have managed to articulate in our different ways, the Government have given in. Now those elections are back on, and people in Southend, Basildon and Thurrock can go to the polls and peacefully and democratically express their opinion on the Labour mob who run those three councils should be allowed to carry on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.

[Jim Shannon]

Honourable would be enough for me. Does the right hon. Member agree that the elections are not just bureaucratic processes? They are how communities hold leaders to account, set local priorities and influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. If anybody tries to stop an election, it will backfire on them. Does the right hon. Member agree that people’s opinions are the priority? Let people decide. Do not deny them their right to the ballot box.

[Mr Francois]

I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections.

Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box?

I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available.

People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England.

I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas.

On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.”

I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both.

In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services.

This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.

[Mr Francois]

My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.

[Alison McGovern]

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

[Mr Francois]

And Wickford for good measure.

[Alison McGovern]

Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford.

In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government.

Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era.

Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods.

The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition.

However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable.

Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used.

Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources.

Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House.

Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services.

Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:

“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”

What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—

[Mr Francois]

Shall I read it again?

[Alison McGovern]

No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is much I could say in response to my hon. Friend, who makes some excellent points, but I will just say that I have heard what he says, and I will do my best.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?

[Alison McGovern]

I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with local authority leaders. They will have heard what he has said, and I am sure that they can take his views into consideration when they respond to our letter.

Planning Reform

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing record of campaigning for those who have experienced rough sleeping or homelessness. Housing First, as we have discussed, is one way that areas can provide person-centred and trauma-informed support for people with complex needs, which is important in preventing long-term rough sleeping. Areas across England can use flexible funding, including our £255 million rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, to do so. The Liverpool city region combined authority, which includes his constituency of Southport, received nearly £4 million of funding through the grant this year.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?

[Alison McGovern]

There we have it: in a question about homelessness, we have a Tory MP getting up and asking how he can say no to more homes. [Interruption.]

Property Service Charges

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too.

Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that

“it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”.

He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As a constituency MP, I have had some appalling experiences with FirstPort, at Oak Lodge in Hockley and at King Georges Court in Rayleigh. The latter is a four-storey McCarthy Stone development that it manages, where the lift was out of action for almost a year. Is not the fundamental problem with FirstPort that it is ultimately owned by several offshore venture capital companies that are very aggressive in seeking revenue from their tenants, but do not seem very willing to provide a decent quality of service in return?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full.

These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere.

The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount.

That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed.

It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.