English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I thought you might say that—thank you.

Donna Jones: I have represented my two counties, with 2.2 million people, for four and a bit years now. It is tough, because I have two large geographical counties; it would take me three and a half hours to travel from north to south of my patch, and I know colleagues have the same issue. If you are doing your job well and you are delivering, the press—the media, radio and TV—is your best friend. The power of being able to work with the press to get out the good news of what you are doing is very impactful. For mayors who have police under them, if the police are delivering and helping, that is another way of getting messaging out there.

On parish and town councils, I think that in my area, the rub will come with local government reorganisation, which thankfully is a year or two behind devolution—or planned to be one year behind it. I am trying to very clearly separate the two: this is about spending and more power to our elbow in Hampshire and the Solent, and that is about how we save money through local government reorganisation.

If I was still a unitary authority leader, facing the prospect of moving from 15 councils in my area to perhaps four or five, I would be consulting on parish and town councils, if we did not have them in the area that I represented. When you have four very large unitary authorities across a county such as Hampshire, which has 1.8 million people, the nucleus of your council becomes much further away from the village or town that you live in. Therefore, from a democratic perspective, getting things at that lower level to give real buy-in will be key.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Q I am really concerned about the movement of powers from police and crime commissioners to mayors, but more so about the moving of the fire and rescue services, which are given almost a passing mention in the Bill. I am fascinated to hear how you see this, as mayors who are already in place. Strategic authorities will cover multiple counties, multiple fire authorities and multiple police authorities, and all that will be vested in a single person. That feels like a real democratic deficit.

How do you understand those different areas? In my area, Wessex, there will be four counties, with two different police authorities and two different fire authorities, and the authority itself. It will all have to line up eventually. I am really concerned about how you can improve services for your residents, because that is what this is all about. It feels very remote when services such as police and fire might be very different in the New Forest compared with the centre of Portsmouth, the North York Moors or one of the cities.

Tracy Brabin: If I could just make the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners, we have had so many amazing opportunities because of those two responsibilities—the teaming and ladling of responsibilities and moneys, and being able to have a strategic police and crime plan. Crime does not just come from bad people; it comes from poor housing, a lack of skills and opportunity, and a lack of transport to get to jobs and training. The ability to bring together those responsibilities in a Venn diagram gives us really great outcomes.

One example is using money from the apprenticeship levy share scheme that would have gone back to Whitehall. We have kept some of that money in the region, including £1 million from Morrisons, to train up 15 PCSOs to go on my bus network and in bus stations, so that we can target my safety of women and girls plan. That opportunity is a gift. I know that the Mayor of South Yorkshire called an early election in order to get those powers, because he saw the opportunity. I also know that Kim McGuinness, who has been a PCC and is now a mayor, is desperate for PCC responsibilities, because she knows the benefit.

To your point, the challenge is coterminosity. I know that the previous Home Secretary was very focused on trying to identify how to get not just savings, but efficiencies, in coterminosity. Bringing fire into that makes a fair bit of sense. In West Yorkshire, we already have a really decent relationship between fire and police, so I am not sure whether having additional powers would make a substantive difference, but I will say to the Committee that mayors need to be in local resilience forums. Following the horrendous attack in Southport, the public, the Government and the press went to the mayor, but the mayor is not privy to all the information in the first instance. The resilience piece is really important, and I know the Bill is going to address that.

[The Chair]

Donna Jones, we have five minutes left for this panel.

Donna Jones: I will be very brief. While I was effectively advocating for my own job to go, I support what Tracy is saying, because it is about representing the public as best we can and spending taxpayers’ money wisely.

I will give you an example of why there is support for police and crime powers, as well as fire, going into a mayor’s office. One of the biggest frustrations that I have had as a police and crime commissioner has been the lack of ability to convene. I can convene with good will, so I can ask people and bring them together, but I get all different levels from different councils. Sometimes I get the director of children’s services or the director of adult social care coming to my strategic violence reduction meetings; sometimes I get the community safety manager.

Community safety partnerships are hit and miss in a lot of councils—you will know that from your patch. Some district councils see the benefit in community safety, and they still have their community wardens; in others, the emergency planning manager is doubling up as the CSP manager. PCCs have historically paid money towards the CSP manager and the functions that they are delivering, knowing that really, they are just propping up the council’s emergency planning management team, and there is not really a CSP at all. It comes together when, sadly, a baby has died or there is a need to convene a domestic homicide review. That still sits at the district council level, which is an oddity to me.

A whole load of things are aggravating factors. On the serious violence duty, for example, my requirement is to make sure that everyone who has a duty under that is fulfilling it, but I do not have a direct duty myself. I have to make sure that all the councils are doing what they need to do. Each year, I am given a pot of money from the Home Office to do the strategic needs assessment, and then I co-ordinate that and pass it back to the Home Office, on behalf of prisons, probation, the police and all my councils. Some councils turn up and play a part in that; some do not.

Giving the mayor the public safety commissioner role, so that what the councils are currently doing can be pulled through the mayor, and so that the mayor has the right and ability to convene and make sure that people are working and fulfilling their duty to collaborate, will be a game changer. It will make communities safer. However, police moneys are ringfenced, while fire money is not—that is a matter for you.

In relation to local resilience forums, I completely agree. Baroness Jane Scott, who was Minister in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, did a pilot about having sub-committees sitting under the main LRF executive, which is politically led, to brief MPs and council leaders on the highest risks that the council chief execs are working on with all the statutory agencies. We were not one of the selected areas, but we have decided to go ahead and set one up in my area and, as the police and crime commissioner, I am currently chairing it.

Ben Houchen: There has been a huge Government push, in recent months, to try to get the co-ordination and coterminous boundaries to match, because this Government have definitely doubled down on the idea that mayors should be both police and crime commissioners and in charge of the fire authority.

It probably does not surprise many people in this room that I am one of the exceptions among pretty much all the mayors that are currently elected. Again, for me, it comes back to the strategic point. It is not particularly about the police; it is about the role of the mayor and the role of the combined authority. I personally believe—and I would say this, would I not?—that one of the reasons many of the combined authorities have been so successful is because we have a very narrow remit, which is largely economic regeneration, investment and job creation. That obviously links in to things such as transport and skills, and there is therefore a logical argument to take that further to health, policing and fire and so on.

I would go a different way. If it were me—as I have said, it is not me and it will not be me—I would not give us such broad powers. I would not give me police or fire. What I would give me is more powers over the things I already have a remit for. I would go deeper, rather than broader.

I would therefore try to build into a Bill the need and requirement for better consultation and co-ordination with other democratically elected leaders. The LRF is a perfect example of better co-ordination. The mayor should be on the local resilience forum—that is just a miss, because we are brand new. It does not mean that we have to take over the local resilience forum and be in charge of it all; I think the concept goes beyond that. Obviously, I would say that, as a small-state Conservative, because the more powers you give us, the broader, the more bureaucratic and the less effective we become. Keeping us narrow, but giving us more powers in relation to what we have control over, rather than just broadening it out, will give you better outcomes from us. As I say, I know that I am the exception to the rule in that opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q What about the CIPFA guidance point? Can you address that?

Bill Butler: There is a standard basis for it standardisation and simplification so that you can move between sets of accounts. It seems hugely sensible. Interestingly, I can remember having similar discussions in the early 1980s, when I first qualified, with the then Department of the Environment’s technical advisers. We have made some progress. Yes, the inconsistency is odd. As Gareth said, it causes problems for auditors as well, because they move between places. It does not help the underlying problem that we have been discussing.

[Vikki Slade]

Q You have talked about policy issues, the lack of trust and the suspicion around transparency. I am sure we have all heard assumptions that things are going on in councils. What is your assessment of the possibly complementary role of local public accounts committees sitting alongside the Local Audit Office? Fundamentally, councils, health authorities and education are all intermingled—they are all spending public money. Do you have a view on whether this might be the time to go for that?

Gareth Davies: I work with the current Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. In that set-up, it is an essential part of the effectiveness of the accountability system. I have seen how the Committee works, and it works extremely well on a non-partisan basis. It has a hugely dedicated membership pursuing accountability across government, so it is a very effective model in the House of Commons. Such a body is normally positive in local government in the context of combined authorities—that is where I have seen it mentioned most. As I said earlier, having an audit committee in every local authority is an essential part of good governance. Questions like, “Are we managing the risks to the organisation effectively? Are the controls that we think we have in place operating as intended?” are the meat and drink of an audit committee agenda.

Where a local public accounts committee might have an effect would be in looking across the public service landscape—say, at a combined authority or sub-regional scale, in Greater Manchester, in the west midlands or wherever. I think there is a gap there at the moment. One of my last roles before I stopped auditing local government was auditing the Greater Manchester combined authority; it was ramping up in scale at the time, and it was getting to be very significant, including some health spending and so on. As we know, it is the most developed of the devolved set-ups at the moment. I can see how, in that arena, a local public accounts committee would add real value by looking beyond the institution, which an individual audit committee cannot do, and by looking at value for money in the sub-region. If that is what we are talking about, it would be a body that we in the National Audit Office could engage with in order to follow the public pound from national policy making, through to sub-regional infrastructure and so on, and through to council delivery. All parts of that are important, including right at the individual local authority level.

Bill Butler: I have nothing to add.

[The Chair]

Do you agree with Gareth?

Bill Butler: I do. My only plea at the moment is that what we have got does not work, so that may be an aspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q You make the point about creating organisations and capacity that reflects the will and want of the people. A big part of that is diversity and representation. One of the challenges that we have had in the community sector is that it tends to be those parts of the community who have the social capital, the time and so on who are at the forefront of that. I am interested in your views on what we should be thinking about to ensure that whatever neighbourhood governance structures we create are genuinely representative and have that diversity of views and opinions to genuinely drive the will and want of the community.

Sacha Bedding: The first thing is that we have to make it accessible. I will always advocate for a community organising approach, because I think that releasing people’s agency, so that they feel that they can take action on the things they care about, is a route to that. However, whether it is asset-based community development, old traditional community development or community organising, that is where we start. We start where people are, not where we would like them to be.

If we can do that and resource that, there are thousands of people willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved where they live. I see it every day; you see it in your constituencies every day. This is not some great big secret—it is just, “Go out and ask them.” On the flipside of that, our sector, like every other sector, has been hammered for a long time, but releasing the skills and talents of local people to take action on the things they care about will answer that question.

[Vikki Slade]

Q I absolutely support your comment about the reopening of the community improvement fund or similar, but last week we had the Museum of Broken Dreams downstairs, which showcased some incredible projects that had failed due to various issues. This Bill is a good start, but does it go far enough? For example, it is great to see supporting assets included, but are they the right ones? What about environmental assets—places within communities for nature and open space? Would they be something you would be interested in expanding to?

Sacha Bedding: I do not work in an area of environmental concern. If there are environmental opportunities in places, the broader the scope of what we consider an asset of community value to be, the better, in my opinion. I do not think we should prescribe that it must be bricks and mortar. For us in Hartlepool, things such as long-term plans for neighbourhoods should include the sea. That is our greatest asset, after the people who live there, and every community plan could involve the sea, for example. The environmental opportunities are there; whether we can distinguish whether they are social or environmental does not matter—let us expand the scope.

However, we should also look at the right to shape public services, because too often the people who are receiving services do not have a stake in the design of those services and the right to control investment. That is a big one. I do not mean, for example, Hartlepool getting 10 nuclear modular power stations, although that is great news; I mean at the neighbourhood level, where houses can be built, or not built, as we have just heard. People should have a stake in that decision. If you want more housing built, work alongside people who live in that community now. Do not just internally exile them, flatten the houses and say, “Hard luck, son.” That is not an answer.

The more expansive the assets of community value are, the better. The opportunity to expand the community rights is there, and it makes more sense for everybody. On homelessness strategies, where people are still on the streets and we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, or a literacy strategy, where one in three people is illiterate and that works with cohesion, if people can bring those together, they will coalesce around a place, and they can do that far better if those rights are enhanced.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Mr Bedding, for coming down and for your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 10 minutes, because our Minister has been sitting here and she has to give evidence next. We will resume at 5.20 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q May I put a point of clarification? If there is no independent financial assessment, on what basis do the Government have a view that 500,000 is the most efficient size?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to the fact that it is not just about savings and efficiency, but about removing fragmentation and about what makes sense in terms of the types of services that we are asking local authorities to deliver—it is a whole set of things. That is our benchmark, but ultimately the basis of localism is to say to places, “Given these parameters, what do you think makes sense?” We will use that to make decisions.

[Vikki Slade]

Q Most areas that are currently undergoing local government reorganisation seem to be moving at pace to set up town and parish councils, if they do not have them, to protect their assets, protect their identity and retain local democratic accountability, because they are nervous about decisions being taken a long way away. That demonstrates how much they are valued. Yet places are not being supported to do so. There is no duty to co-operate with, include or consult with town and parish councils in the Bill. The funding for neighbourhood planning is gone, and I have had confirmation today that it is not coming back. There is no money to support the community right to buy. I believe that the desire for devolution is genuine, and we share it, but if you want to devolve to truly local people, you have to include and value the community level. Will you be open to reviewing the role of town and parish councils and how local people can truly get involved, either through town and parish councils or through community activism, rather than it being top-down?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: The push of powers to communities is absolutely critical to us, and the duty on local authorities to think about neighbourhood governance is trying to get to the heart of that. Parish councils may be the structures and institutions that the local authority decides to build on, but it is not consistent across the country, so we have to ensure that we are finding the right governance structures for different places so that communities have a genuine voice. We have to ensure that we have diversity of representation, which we need for this to be enduring and for it to ensure that there is power and voice for communities. The commitment is there, and that is why we have it. We were very clear that this was not just about strategic authorities or local authorities, but was absolutely about the neighbourhood level. How we get that right has to be a conversation—an iterative relationship with places. That is the bit that we are absolutely committed to.

[Mrs Blundell]

Q Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today. In Rochdale borough, where I am an MP, we will never forget the appalling case of Awaab Ishak, who of course was the two-year-old toddler who lost his life as a result of the local housing association’s failures. This came after Rochdale Boroughwide Housing removed elected representatives from its board. They were the people who could voice the concerns of local people on the representative body. Do you agree that local councillors or the local authority should be represented on housing boards, and that their statutory role on those boards would only serve to strengthen the voices and protect the rights of tenants?

Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are clear that councillors have an absolutely fundamental role to play in the democratic system that we are trying to create. They are not only elected, but champions and conduits for their community.

As we drive through these reforms, there is a question about how we build on the power of councillors and the role that they play, whether within our neighbourhood governance structures or, indeed, in how they interact with the mayor, and the accountability and scrutiny of the mayor.

You can have our assurance that councillors have a fundamental role in the landscape and are part of the infrastructure that we need to build on. There are huge opportunities for that as we take the process forward.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am a member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I declare that I used to be a parish councillor and, until March, a district councillor for Stratford-on-Avon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

My husband is a sitting councillor on Rochdale borough council.

[Vikki Slade]

Apologies for having a second go, but my husband is also a sitting councillor and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

In case we do not get to it this afternoon, Donna Jones, one of the witnesses, is a personal friend of mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis]

Q You mentioned how important town and parish councils are, and suggested that you would ideally like to see more parish councils. My question is on the neighbourhood governance proposals in the Bill. What do you make of them? What should they learn from the current structures of the town and parish councils? Based on your earlier comment, do you think that we should not have them, but should be looking at extending parish and town councils?

Justin Griggs: One of the ambitions that the Government set out in the White Paper and the Bill is to simplify local government structures and make them much more consistent. In 92% of England, if you leave your house, the first place where decisions are taken for you is in the stewardship of your park and open spaces, and in the supporting local organisations. You would not have that in many parts of England under local government reorganisation.

Those structures should be set up, and it is very much in keeping with other phases of reorganisation. Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are fully parished. It would very much go with the grain and good practice of what has happened previously. It is really helpful—credit to Sam and many of his members—that many district councils are conducting community governance reviews to take a look at neighbourhood and community governance in their areas, where there is interest and appetite to set up new councils, so that they have a structure and a voice for taking action.

On the ingredients of how neighbourhoods can work, it is really helpful that the Government have set out that they see neighbourhood governance and models such as neighbourhood area committees as not undermining parish and town councils, but recognising their role and how they should be hardwired into representation on those committees. That goes to the heart of how we need to get all tiers of local government—strategic authorities, unitary authorities and parish councils—working collectively to benefit their residents.

Sam Chapman-Allen: It is important that the Secretary of State and Whitehall do not dictate what those local government and neighbourhood arrangements look like. It is for local places, local residents and local councillors—whether town, parish, district, unitary or county councillors—to decide what those types of neighbourhood models look like, bringing everyone together from the voluntary sector to the public sector, and the private sector if required, to deal with the challenges in that place-based locality.

[Vikki Slade]

Q In more urban areas, particularly those that have districts and do not have town or parish councils—I represent an area that did not have a neighbourhood review and does not have them—there is real potential for losing the civic and cultural identity of a place. Can you talk to what you think needs to change in who is the local face for a town or community?

Sam Chapman-Allen: I come back to my previous response: it is for local places to decide. Everywhere will look different. Casting ourselves back to where we are in Norfolk, we have the fantastic cathedral city of Norwich and the two massive coastal ports of Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn. They are working out whether they need to establish a town or parish council, or whether the new unitary council can pick up that type of role—what is appropriate for them.

That civic place base is really important, with all the history and regalia that goes with it, but the most important bit is how those residents identify and interact with their local councillors and their local town hall. It is not for me, as chair of the District Councils Network, to tell them; I do not believe it is for Whitehall Departments either. It is for those local places to work out. That is what makes this Bill so special. It is for everybody in local communities to derive that. That is why it is important that local communities get to decide the structures, the size and scale, and the neighbourhood arrangements.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Q This is a question for Councillor Chapman-Allen about the balance of powers between councils and strategic authorities in the licensing space. A number of our district and unitary councils, including Peterborough and Huntingdonshire, in the area I represent are grappling with problems of taxi licensing, where taxis are potentially registering in nearby authorities with laxer regimes to avoid standards—

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Q A quick question to Councillor Hicks. In your role as chair of the County Council Network, have you had any discussions with or representations from Konsel Kernow, Cornwall Council? If you have, what is the nature of those discussions in relation to mayoral combined authorities?

Matthew Hicks: I have only been in post a week, so I cannot give you an answer as to whether those discussions have taken place in the past. Certainly I know we have looked at the Cornwall business case and Cornwall has always been well represented and a strong voice at the CCN, putting its case very strongly, and I am sure that will continue in the future. However, I cannot answer that question today.

[Vikki Slade]

Q This is a big question, but I know you need to give a quick answer. I think everyone is agreed, or most of us are agreed, that local government needs to reform urgently. Is this it? What is not in the Bill that should have been if we are going to do this properly? There is still an opportunity for us to do that.

Bev Craig: As we touched on earlier, sometimes a conflation of resource and organisation. It is important to draw the distinction that we are not here today to put forward the LGA’s position around the resourcing component, but it is important that we still see that outside the Bill. From an LGA perspective, we would be looking for more clarity on competencies as people move into strategic authorities, and really important is thought around what capacity and support is given to councils as they move through their transition. There are other things that we will continue to push for—for example, thinking about the role of civic and cultural competencies in strategic authorities and how they play into place. Fundamentally, in the Bill we want recognition that local authorities play a key role in delivering all of this, and without collaboration there will not be success.

Kevin Bentley: If I can leave you with one word, it is implementation. Although it does not feel like it, drawing lines on a map and putting the evidence forward is the easy part. Doing it is something very different. We learn from the experience of others and we look at others. This round of devolution is very different from what has happened before. We are creating new large authorities and devolving and disaggregating services upward to those authorities, so we must resource implementation properly. I would like to see a much firmer line on resourcing—not telling us how to do it, because I think we know locally how to do it, but making sure there is resourcing for us to do it. We have to remember that while we are doing that, with shadow elections for us in 2027, we still have to deliver the day job. That is about people and certainly in upper tier authorities, it is about some vulnerable people.

My only concern throughout all of this, and I am and always have been a great devolutionist, is that we do something or miss something and somebody falls through a crack and is left behind. None of us must allow that to happen. I know we will not and we will work very hard, but we need the proper resourcing to make that happen. This is fundamental change and is very unlikely to happen again for the next 50, 60 or even more years in the future. We have to get it right. Our successors will not thank us if we do not.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Catriona Riddell and Ion Fletcher gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Nick Plumb, policy director at Power to Change, and Robbie Whittaker, a member of the Football Supporters’ Association national council. This panel, and our morning sitting, will finish no later than 11.44 am.

[Vikki Slade]

Q Welcome to the Committee. Communities will be able to nominate assets of community value that are of economic value. Nick, that is particularly relevant for the community businesses that you support. Can you say a little about how communities could use the new power, and whether there are resources that need to come with that power?

Nick Plumb: At Power to Change, we think that the Bill’s provisions on community right to buy are a positive step forward. Power to Change has been calling for this for several years. To illustrate why the right is so needed, the key piece of data on the current regime on assets of community value and the community right to bid is that of every 1,000 assets that are listed as assets of community value, only 15 end up in community hands. The expansion of the definition of assets of community value to include economic as well as social benefit is a positive step, as is the introduction of a community right to buy as opposed to a community right to bid.

Some of the questions lie in the implementation. We think that there are potential challenges with this new right if you are asking councils to maintain a broader list of assets of community value and trying to get the new right to live up to the expectations that communities are rightly bringing forward. One thing that Power to Change has been calling for since the end of the community ownership fund is continued community ownership funding to support groups, particularly at the early stage at which groups might have a great idea for an asset but are not quite sure how to take it forward. A combination of revenue and capital funding is really important.

One of the lessons of the community ownership fund is that communities have a real ability to raise funds themselves. One of the great stories of the fund was that Government money leveraged lots of other investment, whether that was through private loans or by community share raising, where groups go out to the community to raise money from local members. Any future funding model for community ownership to sit alongside the community right to buy could be quite mixed. It could involve grant, loan and, importantly, revenue funding support and training. I know that there is mention of that in the Bill, and I am pleased to see that.

There is one final point to add, on the economic contribution of community-owned assets. Power to Change recently did some work with the 11,000 community businesses across England and found that they contribute roughly £1.5 billion in direct gross value added to the economy, which is equivalent to the solar sector, so they are important economic actors. Importantly, the economic contribution of community-owned assets sticks locally: we found that roughly 56p in every £1 circulates in the local economy, due to local supply chains, compared with roughly 40p for large private businesses. With the agenda around local growth, I see a successfully implemented community right to buy as a key driver of local growth outcomes.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q Thank you for setting out how we are building on the community right to bid and the additional powers that are baked in to the legislation that will generally give communities the power to take over assets. One of the things that we have done a huge amount of work on over the past decade and a bit is building the capacity of our community organisations to be in the position to do this. I am interested in your take on the relationship with the neighbourhood governance powers in the Bill and the extent to which you think that this is an opportunity to build the capacity of some of our community organisations both to take over ownership but, critically, to have voice and power to change their places.

Nick Plumb: I want to make a couple of points. It was a really interesting conversation this morning on neighbourhood governance from colleagues from parish councils and local government. Power to Change is a member of the We’re Right Here campaign, which has been campaigning for community power legislation such as some of the measures in this Bill. We are keen that the neighbourhood governance measures that are introduced through the Bill allow for local variation and for a whole range of different organisations that exist at a neighbourhood level to be a part of that neighbourhood governance arrangement. We think that one of the risks with the area committee model is that it is a prescriptive top-down model that says, “This is the way to do things,” rather than saying, “What exists already in a neighbourhood, and how do we build on that?”

One of the ideas that Power to Change has been working on and testing in place is a community covenant. We have been testing that so far in Market Drayton in Shropshire through a partnership of 20 local organisations—everyone from the local authority to community organisations to representatives from town and parish councils—on the idea of a family and neighbourhood hub. So far, the results from that work are really positive. There was some initial scepticism about a new way of working, but one of the council officers has fed back that the new approach is a real gift that has helped them to move much further and faster with their communities than they would have done if they were just doing things from the council down.

One of the calls from us through this legislation is to try not to be too prescriptive with neighbourhood governance but lean into a model that puts people on an equal footing and gives people an equal seat at the table. I will not spend too long on this, but my other point is that it is great that we have a piece of legislation with “community empowerment” in its title, and I think that community right to buy and neighbourhood governance, if done right, go some way. Power to Change and the We’re Right Here campaign would like to see community right to buy as one of several community rights. We have been calling for a community right to shape public services, which would entail involving the people who receive services from the state in the design, delivery and development of public services. That would build on provisions in the Localism Act, such as the right to challenge, and it would make that a much more expansive right.

We would also like to see a community right to control investment, which would involve certain bits of investment from central Government sitting at that neighbourhood level. Both of those rights really lean into some of the Government’s existing agenda. The plan for neighbourhoods is a real example of that. There are some questions still to be answered on what that looks like, but it could involve trusting neighbourhoods to take hold of money and think, “How do we improve our lot together?”

The right to shape public services is very in line with some of the test, learn and grow work that is happening in the Cabinet Office. We would see the community empowerment element of the Bill really living up to its name if it was the beginning of a set of community rights rather than the community right to buy tick and done.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.

The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.

Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.

Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.

I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.

Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.

In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.

The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were

“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,

and I wholly agree.

Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.

I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.

However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics?

[Vikki Slade]

A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.

Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through?

[Vikki Slade]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern that some areas risk being left behind by this muddled approach. I ask the Secretary of State for assurances on how she will ensure that such areas do not fall further behind neighbours that are further along in the programme.

We Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government are reversing the Conservatives’ disastrous decision to use first past the post for mayoral and police commissioner elections—it is ridiculous that one of the mayors elected this May won on just 25% of the vote—but the Government must go further in making votes fair. We believe that the Government should bring in the alternative vote system so that voters’ voices are properly heard. We maintain that if the Government believe in majority support for elected officials, they should extend that mandate to MPs and councillors, too.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Sussex mayoral elections that are due to take place in May next year will use the current first-past-the-post system rather than the proposed system that the Government say they favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair on Sussex residents that everybody who is a year behind in the programme will get to vote using a better system?

[Vikki Slade]

I will come to that later in my speech, when I will share the concerns of electoral officials about whether the legislation can deliver in time for any of the changes scheduled for next year. Although I recognise that there is an anomaly for next year, even electoral officials are worried about the Bill’s timeline and the ability to make any changes for 2026 and for those who have already had elections delayed.

Across the sector, there are serious concerns about the power of the commissioners that will be appointed by mayors—people with significant influence but little scrutiny. There is concern that they will hold more sway than elected leaders of local authorities but without any democratic accountability. In the very centre, the Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without parliamentary oversight or local consent. I am seeking an explanation of how and when those powers would be used, so that we can assure our local leaders that they will not be overridden.

There is widespread concern about the loss of highly skilled, experienced councillors through the removal of district councils. I noted the Secretary of State’s concerns about putting power into the hands of too few people. How will she ensure that there is not a democratic and skills deficit and that people are properly represented across these larger regions?

For the last decade, the Conservative Government have cut funding to councils but forced them to do more. Their economic mismanagement and failure to fix social care has left many councils on the brink of collapse. This Bill was an opportunity for real local government reform, but it is an opportunity missed.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

A particular concern of my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead, where we have one local authority in Devon and one in Somerset, is the real difficulties around special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could create difficulties for local authorities that are struggling to deliver good SEND education for so many of our children?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Special educational needs are a huge passion of mine—I am sure Members have heard me talk about them many times—and this issue will take so many councils to a very dark place. I trust that the Minister hears that on a regular basis and that we will see in the fair funding review something really serious about special educational needs provision.

Local authorities have unique access to every household and business, which gives them a huge opportunity to improve people’s health and wellbeing. The Bill requires strategic authorities to improve the health of their communities, but I am concerned that it does not provide substantial funding to do that, and without that funding, I cannot see how it can be achieved. While the Bill makes substantial improvements to the workings of audit, it misses the opportunity to shine a light on all the places that taxpayers’ money is spent through the introduction of local public accounts committees. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State refer to that being in her thinking, but rolling them out alongside strategic authorities would really aid transparency, improve value for money and enable organisations to share resources for the good of the community. I urge the Government to reflect on that as we go towards the Report stage.

The Bill also proposes that strategic authorities take on the functions of police and crime commissioners and fire authorities. However, because of the disparity in boundaries, there is a real risk that community priorities will not be maintained, and the control of such things by appointed rather than elected commissioners further reduces democratic accountability. How will the Government ensure fair funding and effective policing and fire services where strategic authorities cover vastly different communities?

Councils have expressed similar concerns about a mismatch between places within those authorities—for example, the different needs of urban and rural areas, or the inclusion of a single authority among a cluster of places with very different levels of deprivation or demographics. Some communities feel that where decisions are made by simple majority vote, their voice will not be heard. Weighted voting and the meaningful inclusion of town and parish councils can ensure that local insight is retained, particularly around issues such as planning and transport.

Representation must not end there. This Bill was an opportunity to ensure that local services draw on and are informed by the full range of lived experiences in an area.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill could make it more difficult for residents to access services, because where authorities that currently deliver services on a county-wide basis are split into multiple authorities, it will create borders within counties?

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.

District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?

[Vikki Slade]

I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.

We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track?

[Vikki Slade]

I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.

As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The Competition and Markets Authority recently found that major house builders were preventing and distorting competition, including by matching prices and incentives to buyers. That further damages public confidence in house buying, and will have pushed home ownership out of the reach of many people. House builders have agreed to pay £100 million towards affordable housing schemes, but what redress is available for homeowners who have been misled? How will the Government achieve oversight of that funding to ensure that builders are held accountable, the additional homes are delivered, and there are effective disincentives to stop this happening again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. This weekend was a fantastic economic boost for many seaside towns, but along with the visitors, towns such as Poole and Bournemouth are blighted with illegal parking on roundabouts and across driveways and pavements. The Minister knows exactly what I am about to say: with 1,700 tickets issued, with the most dangerous cars towed away and with fines fixed for 20 years, does he believe that it is reasonable that council tax payers should pick up the bill of up to £200 per towed-away car for an illegal driver?

[Alex Norris]

It is incumbent on all of us to park with a degree of responsibility, particularly at peak times. I think parking-related issues are the No. 1 feature of my mailbag. Our consultation on private parking opened last Friday. I am interested in working with the hon. Lady and all Members to ensure that we get the balance right.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

Local government funding is in crisis, from social care to special needs, homelessness to high streets. Our councils—whose work impacts us all and who are the backbone of local service delivery—are being pushed to the brink. While the estimate sounds positive, it is way more complicated, just like the work that councils do. The lack of funding is not a new problem. The hollowing-out of local government has been happening for a decade. In my home councils of BCP and Dorset, central funding through the revenue support grant was slashed by between 95% and 98% over that time. The Government’s announcement that central funding for councils with low tax bases will be weighted sort of misses the point. Many councils in the south receive no revenue support grant and are already raising their council tax by the maximum 5% each year. The Government need to talk to the councils they are targeting and review this proposal before they create a new problem.

Local areas are dealing with ageing populations and soaring house prices, and councils risk having no choice but to take money directly from services for the poorest, sickest and most vulnerable. The three-year settlements are welcome to help planning, and the headline £13.5 billion increase in Department funding by 2028-29 sounds positive, but measured against 2025-26 it is actually a real-terms cut of 0.6%. While MHCLG’s day-to-day spending will rise by £2.5 billion, much of this comes through transfers. For example, much of the £857 million for adult social care is reallocated from children’s social care, and the £515 million to cover increased national insurance contributions does not cover the demand.

Adult social care is now the largest spending area for upper-tier authorities. Meanwhile, tensions between the NHS and councils over who funds the sick and elderly are growing, leaving families stuck in the middle. Carers bear the brunt, often being forced to choose between caring and working, which has knock-on effects on the wider economy and carers’ wellbeing. The situation is made worse because independent providers are not covered for the NICs increase. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the increase in national insurance will cost independent social care employers £940 million this year. Many are handing back contracts, unable to make the numbers add up, which is piling pressures on to councils. I urge the Minister to look closely at the impact of this change. The Liberal Democrats want a social care workforce plan, a royal college of care workers to improve recognition, and a higher carer’s minimum wage. We call on the Government to complete the Casey review within one year instead of three. The elderly, disabled and our NHS deserve better than further delay.

The crisis extends beyond adult care, affecting our youngest children too. SEND provision is, as we know, inconsistent and underfunded. Parents are exhausted, teachers are overwhelmed, and children are being left behind. We are relieved, rather than happy, that the statutory override will continue for another two years, because many councils would face insolvency within months without it, but this merely defers the inevitable. As debts outgrow reserves, councils cannot invest in their communities or drive local growth.

The upcoming White Paper must guarantee every child with an EHCP the support that works for them, make mainstream education more inclusive so that children can stay close to home with their peers, and urgently reform the funding formula. The funding formula does not work. In some areas, the annual base funding per pupil is £2,500 less than in others. Schools have to fund the first £6,000 for any special educational support, but some schools do not get £6,000 a year for a pupil’s whole education. The Liberal Democrats really are begging for that to be resolved. In specialist provision, I have seen independent settings charge more than £100,000 to educate children with moderate needs when a state-maintained special school is doing the same for £20,000; but, without alternatives, councils are forced to pay.

The loss of the £100 million rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to rural councils, so I welcome the consultation on reviewing that, but those councils face not just higher delivery costs but recruitment challenges. It was wrong for the Government to suggest that rural communities do not face the same deprivation—tell that to some of my constituents who have no mains gas and no sewerage, no job opportunities and are miles from anything.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £267 million for rough sleeping and £194 million for homelessness prevention, and we are pleased that that has been ringfenced, but without a target for social house building, councils remain burdened with the costs of temporary accommodation. It is not just about money: the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report revealed that temporary housing is detrimental to our children’s health, with it being a factor in the deaths of 74 children, including 58 infants, in the last five years. It also damages the developmental, mental health and life chances of every child in that situation. We therefore welcome the £39 billion investment in affordable housing, but we are disappointed to see how backloaded it is, meaning that many families will wait up to 10 years finally to get a roof over their heads.

Finally, I want to address devolution. The Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, so we are disappointed that the Government have cancelled funding for neighbourhood plans and are discouraging the formation of new town and parish councils where there is local government reorganisation. Instead, we are seeing top-down area committees with no statutory powers. The spending review mentions funding for mayoral areas, but that benefits only those areas that are ready to go. What about the areas outside wave one such as Kent and Medway, or Wessex? Where is their support in the meantime? Our local councils deliver every day, but they cannot do it alone, so I urge the Government please to provide fair funding and real devolution for those areas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Chinese Embassy Development

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.

Disadvantaged Communities

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I think we would all agree that it is a basic human right to have a decent place to call home, a neighbourhood where one feels safe, an opportunity to earn a decent living, access to healthcare and a clean environment. If people have those things, they can thrive and, together, form communities that then flourish. If we empower people to take decisions locally, those communities will make choices that lift up the people in them and protect their local environment.

However, under the last Government, it was made harder for communities to take those decisions. Their resources were slashed and they were forced to compete with each other, with towns set against each another in bidding wars through short-term, race-to-the-bottom policies. The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that the Labour Government plan to take decisions away from communities, using the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove local authorities’ power to have a say in planning. We are worried about how proposals for local government reorganisation may move decisions on local services further away from people and their neighbourhoods.

The proposal to provide three-year settlements for councils is reassuring, but only if the funding covers the true cost of providing the services people need—not knowing three years out that the council will be forced to reduce its services is not helpful. Although the 2025-26 settlement offered some additional funding, in many councils—particularly those with high levels of social care spending—the Labour Government’s jobs tax, which increased employers’ national insurance contributions, was not fully reimbursed. The same was true of the packages for fire authorities, and the issue was particularly problematic where high levels of on-call firefighters were on the payroll, meaning that those authorities were seriously disadvantaged.

Turning to the mission-critical neighbourhoods, it is absolutely right that there is a Labour focus—sorry, a laser focus, although I appreciate that there is a Labour focus—on lifting them up and drawing them into every part of society, not just to improve people’s lives, but because if those places are economically active, healthy and safe, the rest of us benefit too.

I want to focus on two main issues for communities: housing and transport. We all know that, for years, people around the country—and not just in those neighbourhoods—have given up. They have given up on the chance of owning a home or of even renting a decent place to call home. They have given up on the opportunity to bring up children and have a meaningful career.

In many rural areas, which may not make up the most deprived areas, there are pockets of extreme poverty that are completely forgotten. There are farmers whose children underperform in schools and are loaned their school uniforms; they live in homes that have not been updated for 60 years.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talked about communities being overlooked because they are contained within wealthier communities. My constituency is in the outer London borough of Sutton, which, by London standards, is on the wealthier end. We have two distinct communities in St Helier and Roundshaw, and those estates absolutely need more support, but they consistently get overlooked because of the way that local government funding works. First, it is on a borough-wide basis, so when the deprivation scores are added up, they are not entitled to much. Secondly, the indices used are extremely outdated and fail to take account of the true cost of housing.

Housing prices in London and the south-east have skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and the indices do not take that into account, which means the average Londoner is now worse off than the average person in many other regions of the country, once we take housing costs into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever reforms we make to better target resources at disadvantaged communities, we must ensure that local government funding formulas take housing costs properly into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there are micro-communities within communities that look wealthy from the outside, and I will come on to some local examples.

In rural and coastal areas, employment opportunities are incredibly limited, as the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said, with seasonal jobs in limited sectors of agriculture and hospitality. The homes have been snapped up by those fortunate enough to own two or more properties, as we heard from Members representing various areas of Cornwall. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the loophole closed on holiday lets, to ensure that they pay council tax, and it is why we want to see the introduction of a separate planning use for both holiday lets and second homes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so that we can secure the homes we need for our teachers, carers and police officers, and our farmers are better able to use their assets on their properties to support agricultural workers, so that we can provide food security.

The Government’s move away from the rural services grant has been devastating for so many communities and needs to be urgently rethought. As stated by the Dorset Community Foundation last year in its “Hidden Dorset” report:

“On the face of it Dorset is a beautiful, vibrant county but scratch the surface and underneath there are areas that are among the most deprived in the UK.”

There are 17,100 children in Dorset living in absolute poverty—not relative, but absolute poverty—and I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) will know where some of those communities are. This is in a place that is not considered a mission-critical area.

The plan for 1.5 million homes is laudable, but the Government must refocus on having the right homes in the right places. The lack of focus on social homes is deeply disappointing, especially for a Labour Government, and I encourage the Department to commit to at least 150,000 homes for social rent, as the Liberal Democrats have. We already have a large number of homes lying empty—1.2 million—and the Liberal Democrats have heard little about what is being done to bring them back into use.

Today’s announcement on transport is great news for some communities, but many are still being forgotten. People living in most of the south-west—and it would appear from the latest announcement that the south-west stops at Bristol—have no access to trains, and where they do have a bus, it only comes a couple of times a day. How exactly are those who cannot afford a private car supposed to get to work? Those aged 16-plus cannot get to school or college. One constituent in Bere Regis in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole had to give up an apprenticeship because there was simply no way to get there. Families living on the minimum wage cannot spare the budget to pay for driving lessons—of course, it is not possible to get a driving test either—or insurance, which can run into thousands of pounds.

Will the Government correct the injustice created when the age of participation was increased by ensuring that home-to-school transport is funded to 18 and accepting Lib Dem proposals to create a young person’s bus card, giving under-25s significant discounts on bus fares? Rural areas are most in need of the bus fare cap, so we hope it will be extended, as journeys are often long and require two or more routes to be used, not just in England but across the United Kingdom—including rural Wales, where, oddly, a project between Oxford and Cambridge was badged as an England and Wales project, potentially costing Wales millions of pounds.

Finally, I want to align myself with the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. We must eradicate child poverty. I share the frustrations of others that the strategy has been delayed, and I hope this means that we will have a much more meaningful document which includes the removal of the two-child benefit cap. These children have done nothing to find themselves in the position of having multiple siblings, and I hope the Government will grasp the nettle and deliver real change for our forgotten neighbourhoods and our next generation.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is unacceptable that this dispute has dragged on into a ninth week. Even more disgraceful, the people of Birmingham are now forced to clean up their own streets. I thank those who gave up their Easter holidays to pick up rubbish for their neighbours but, let us be honest, they should never have had to do it.

This goes way beyond Birmingham. It started with an equal pay claim that bankrupted the council, and with widespread local government reorganisation ahead of us all, what will stop it from happening again? As councils merge, staff will sit side by side doing the same jobs but on completely different pay from each other. That is unjust, unsustainable and a ticking timebomb. Six years after the reorganisation of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, which I led, pay harmonisation is still going on. We could not afford to meet everyone’s expectations, and neither can most councils, which teeter on the edge. What is the Minister doing to stop this from spiralling elsewhere and to protect residents from eye-watering tax hikes or devastating service cuts?

[Jim McMahon]

I want to be careful not to stray too far from Birmingham, which is not affected by local government reorganisation. However, it is completely usual, when looking at the transfer of the workforce, for negotiations to take place with workers and trade unions to harmonise terms and conditions and pay. That will take place in the usual way. We need to be careful not to set hares running unnecessarily.

The issue in Birmingham—the foundational issue, in a way—is equal pay. For far too long, women workers were paid far less than their male counterparts for comparable roles—that went on for decades. The council has to resolve that, as other councils did many years earlier. Women cannot continue to be paid less than their male counterparts. In the end, this is about harmonisation done in the right way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Last month, I was in a field near the East Carr estate in Hull. With the River Humber in the distance, the field lay submerged under water and sat clearly below sea level. Residents told me that the field acts as a barrier between their homes and the water, and they were really worried that the planned development, which is in the Hull local plan, will leave them with flooded homes. Can the Minister reassure me, and residents in Hull and other low-lying communities, that the Government will ensure that the land use framework for determining areas for development will consider flood risk management and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took action on SUDS in the national policy planning framework, and we have made very welcome improvements in that area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on the land use framework. I take it that the hon. Lady has submitted her views, and we will publish the response to that consultation in due course.