David Simmonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system. Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system. Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections. The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that— [ Interruption. ] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country. A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it. Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern. We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward. On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks. Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I am sure we all recognise that when the proceedings in Committee Room 11 of the House of Commons are recorded in the annals of history, it will be noted that this was the afternoon when Surrey died, not with a bang but with a whimper, inside this very room. We are all here to abolish Surrey. There may be some in the room who felt a great enthusiasm to do that many years ago, but it is positive that we are here with what has, for a long time, been a locally led proposal for reorganisation. I have some questions for the Minister, although I will be clear that because this is a locally led proposal that delivers benefits in the views of local leaders, the Opposition will not oppose the draft order. It is clearly disappointing that of the 31 local authorities that had their elections cancelled, we have only Surrey and its districts proceeding with local government reorganisation today. Although the draft order is very much focused on the reorganisation of the existing local authorities, there is no clarity whatsoever about the promised mayor and their responsibilities, and how they will interact with the new authorities. I have heard the frustration of many local leaders that the overall package, while acceptable, falls well short of the minimum that they were led to expect as a result of wider English local government reorganisation. I hope the Minister will address these points in her response. She touched on the Government’s proposals to address the SEND deficit. Surrey, being a very large county with a high population of children with special educational needs and disabilities, carries a total deficit—sorry, a total debt—of around £350 million. A short time ago, the Government set out to the House that they would seek to pay off 90% of SEND deficits. Thus far, Surrey has been offered £100 million against a £350 million deficit. Clearly, that would bake in a structural problem of £250 million for the successor authorities, and it is very substantially less than the 90% that was promised before the House. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what discussions and agreements she may have reached with her fellow Ministers in the Department for Education, given that that is one of the most critical financial challenges that will face the new authorities. While we recognise that the draft order is specifically about Surrey, given that it sits as part of the wider devolution priority programme, it would be helpful for all of us to understand how close other local authority areas are to signing the agreements that underpin it. It would be helpful to get a sense of whether Surrey will be the only one to go through the reorganisation process. Despite the relentless pressure placed on a number of other areas, some leaders, particularly in response to what has been said about the cancellation of elections, have already withdrawn their local authorities entirely from engagement with the programme. Will this be the sole reorganisation in the programme or is it the first of many? If it is the first, when might we see some of the others? It would be helpful for the Committee to understand what guidance the Department is providing, in the spirit of financial sustainability that the Minister spoke of, on the new higher-value property tax. Surrey is one of the areas with a higher proportion of properties that fall for consideration within that tax. We know that it is a Treasury tax that has no benefit to the local authority that collects it, but it would be helpful to understand what guidance, if any, the Department is providing to local authorities, as they engage on the very quick process of getting set up, so that they understand what they need to tell households about what the process will be and how appeals will be handled, and so that they understand their duties and responsibilities. The Minister mentioned the additional £63 million that was announced to assist various local authorities across the country. While we know that that was very substantially less than they were promised they would receive, it would be helpful to know what guidance, if any, has been issued on the purpose of that funding. It seems very similar to the amount that those councils whose elections were to be cancelled would have spent on organising and running the elections in their areas. Clearly, many of their leaders will want to know whether this is additional funding that they can deploy towards reorganisation or simply the usual electoral grant that is provided for the running of elections that were going to be cancelled in those areas. In summary, the Opposition will not press for a Division. We recognise that the draft order implements the will of elected leaders in Surrey, and it is very much in the spirit of our own approach to devolution. However, I must say to the Minister, as we sit here with proposals before us for only one of the authorities announced in the devolution priority programme, and with so many areas of our country feeling so let down, that this falls very far short of what was promised even to Surrey, never mind the rest of our local leaders. It would be helpful to have a clear assurance and a timeline for how the Government propose to remedy that.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Grey-belt Land · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has set out clearly for the House the key plank of development strategy under the previous Secretary of State: re-designating large parts of our green belt as grey belt. Housing delivery is collapsing, but a recent report identified that London already has capacity for 460,000 additional homes on brownfield sites. At the mayor’s rate of delivery, that is an 83-year supply of housing development plots. Rather than focusing on releasing green belt for development, why do the Government not instead focus on building those homes that already have planning permission, and could be built on brownfield sites tomorrow?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from. There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues. We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns. Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers. It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver. It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year. What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says: “Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.” Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country. I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country. Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this. I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings. Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time. History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business. However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a parliamentary vice-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I would like to thank those organisations for the excellent research that they have supplied to Members to help us prepare for today’s debate. While I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate, listening to her story of being a councillor—one that is reflected, I think, by a good number of Members who were present this afternoon—made me think about where it sits in the context of what is happening with the local government funding formula overall and the particular impact that it is having on our inner-London boroughs. We know that London’s funding formula has always, to an extent, created a city of two halves. There are the inner-London boroughs, with a relatively generous settlement from that funding formula and, historically, generally lower council taxes. Then there is a doughnut of outer-London boroughs, in which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) are found, with a funding level broadly in line with the surrounding county and district authorities. For a long time, it has been a source of concern among London authorities that there needs to be some levelling out to ensure consistency across council tax and funding. To address the longer-term funding issues, however, the Government clearly need to address the nature, scope and purpose of many of the statutory duties that exist across all those authorities, in order to enable us all to live within our means and to set levels of taxation that are reasonable for our constituents to pay. Sadly, we are not seeing that happening. Instead, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) described, we have a Government who came to office saying that they were the cavalry coming over the hill, and that they could be trusted to inject additional resources into inner London, outer London and other parts of the country that were concerned about funding. In their first Budget, however, local government was left £1.5 billion net worse off through the jobs tax—the national insurance rise—alone. The consistent feedback from councillors across London is that they feel a sense of shock and surprise at just how fast things have got so much worse. There are also particular significant dynamics in inner London. As several hon. Members have said, in the local government finance settlement, more than two thirds of the additional resources announced by the Government would come from the maximum possible council tax rise being imposed across the board. That is not additional Government funding, it is simply councils being required, as a minimum, to use their maximum possible tax-raising powers on the household budgets of all their local residents. We also see the impacts of exceptional financial support, a policy that has existed under Governments of all stripes under different names for a long time. It is essentially a measure to allow a council to borrow to get it through temporary financial difficulties. It is a way of avoiding the issuance of a section 114 notice, which is the equivalent of a bankruptcy notice, by the statutory finance officers in that local authority. On an almost weekly basis, this Government make written ministerial statements on local government best value interventions, and on agreeing exceptional financial support to the extent that it is no longer exceptional. It is clearly simply a method of sustaining local authorities to avoid bad headlines, rather than addressing the nature, scope and purpose of statutory duties, which need to be addressed to get budgets back into balance. Acute pressure has been created by an explosion in rough sleeping and homelessness in inner London since this Government took office. We need to be clear: London has always had a challenge around rough sleeping. Although my constituency does not cover Heathrow, it is a significant factor in my local authority’s activities. The number of people who find their way to an airport that is open 24/7, with showers, toilets and security, means that there are a disproportionately large number of rough sleepers in my local authority’s area. As we heard, there has been a 27% increase in street homelessness since this Government took office. That contributes to the sharply rising pressure on temporary accommodation that London Councils, on behalf of the capital’s local authorities, has highlighted as the biggest single factor driving inner-London councils to seek exceptional financial support and to look at significant reductions across the capital in the services that our constituents expect local authorities to provide, such as libraries, parks and clean streets. At the same time, according to a recent report by Savills, two thirds of London boroughs report reaching net zero: not net zero in the traditional sense of an environmental target, but net zero new housing starts. In two thirds of our capital’s boroughs, no new homes are being added to the housing stock at a time when the Government have an increasingly unattainable target of 1.5 million new homes. To hear hon. Members from throughout the Chamber talk about the acute pressure from housing need, at a time when housing delivery in the capital has absolutely collapsed, demonstrates that things are not going in the right direction. We are due to consider the local government finance settlement in the main Chamber tomorrow. More two thirds of local authorities have reported, having crunched the numbers on that funding formula, that they will be left worse off under it. Two thirds of councils in the country are worse off under the funding settlement being introduced by this Labour Government. There is another significant factor. This week we heard that the SEND White Paper is to be delayed further. It will address the significant long-term structural and demographic concern driven by the increasing numbers of children with more acute needs for whom local authorities have a statutory duty—another duty over which they have no discretion. Although the statutory accounting override—to which Ministers have referred in the past—goes some way to avoiding that becoming an acute problem, we see acute pressure building up across the country, not just in inner London. All that amounts to a situation where residents in inner London face extraordinarily significant increases in their taxes. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has reported potential increases of council tax of up to £500 a year. Earlier, I met with one of the Conservative councillors from the London borough of Barnet, traditionally one of the less affected outer London boroughs, who reported that a £200 million funding gap is opening up as a result of the changes that this Government are making. Even for those of us in outer London boroughs, where council tax rates are broadly similar to those in the surrounding county and district areas, the combination of the rises in the mayoral precept, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and those acute pressures, mean that in many cases council tax will already be at or well in excess of the £2,000 benchmark that Ministers have set out for council tax across the country. In conclusion, we see a consistent message from across the sector. The leaders of inner-London boroughs—Labour and Conservative—talk of acute pressures getting much worse much faster than they had expected, and shortfalls in this funding settlement so excessive that no level of cuts could lead to boroughs achieving them and meeting their statutory duties. When she speaks on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, will the Minister announce a more fundamental rethink? Local authorities have a huge range of statutory duties, with more than 800 different services delivered by a typical local authority. The rise in national insurance alone has significantly driven up the cost of those activities. We do not simply need more sticking plasters. Our residents, hearing a message from the Labour Government that there is more money in the system, find that money is coming straight out of their pockets and wallets, through massive increases in council tax. We need a fundamental rethink about how we deliver local government in the capital, so that it is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the future.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will recall that during the debates about post-Brexit trade agreements, the highest possible standards of animal welfare were raised frequently across the House on a cross-party basis. The matter my hon. Friend is talking about involves swapping prawns and other types of seafood caught in British waters to the highest possible standards with creatures reared using a method that involves pulling off their eyeballs while they are alive in order for them to lay more eggs so that more prawns can be produced more cheaply. I am sure we would all agree that is cruel and would not meet the expectations set out across the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a powerful point that illustrates the asymmetry in this deal, which he is quite rightly seeking to criticise?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view, which I hear a good deal in a constituency, which contains very many entrepreneurs both of Indian heritage and with connections to business in India, that this deal shows a Government who are not listening to the voice of business that has that level of experience, because they are missing out, as he is describing, on so many of the opportunities that those existing business links contain.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are concerned about the imminent closure of volunteer-manned Pinner police station, as part of a programme of closure by the Mayor of London that leaves the whole London borough of Harrow with no in-person access to the police. Thus far, the volunteers who man the front desk and I have had no response at all from the Mayor of London to our attempts to raise this issue. Will the Minister intervene to ensure that we at least get a response, and that the Mayor of London listens to my constituents’ concerns?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Draft Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026 Draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am sure you will be pleased, as will the Minister, to know from the outset that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these orders. However, I do have a few questions to put to the Minister that are relevant to both orders; where they are not, I will be more specific. The first question is about the agreement that the Minister may or may not have reached with the Treasury about the underwriting of the 30-year mayoral investment fund. One of the concerns that the Opposition have highlighted, which I know has been shared to a degree across parties, is that with the English devolution Bill there is scope, perhaps, for new mayoral authorities to raise significant precepts. The feedback from several authorities is that the big incentive is that central Government are making a significant additional level of discretionary funding available to mayoral combined authorities. Clearly, 30 years runs over multiple future Parliaments, so it would be helpful to understand how the settlement has been reached with the Treasury, whether it means that the funding cannot disappear because of future changes in Government circumstances, and if so what the methodology has been, so that authorities entering into an agreement have a sufficient level of assurance that the funding will continue. I would like to ask the Minister about data sharing, which is one of the new functions conferred by these orders. The authorities in question all have multiple statutory functions—they provide children’s services, adult social care and a variety of different services—but the primary focus of the orders is transport. What data ringfence is drawn around those new data-control and data-sharing measures so that residents can have a degree of assurance and clarity about what is to be shared on this footprint and what is not? I also have a question about the precepts themselves. We briefly touched on the point about the 30-year mayoral investment fund; clearly, with transport as the major focus, the underlying assumption is that the mayor will use the new precept to underwrite investment in those transport functions. A great deal of debate is going on about how transport functions across the country should develop. It would be helpful for the Committee to know what assumptions, if any, the Ministry or other parts of Government have made about the level of the precept, and where that sits against other sources of funding, some of which the Chancellor has referred to, to underpin other elements of public transport investment. To what extent is it an additional levy being funded through a mayoral precept versus what is coming from central Government resources, as has been announced so far? Finally, I have two questions specifically on Warrington. Members across the Committee will be aware that the Minister’s predecessor sent envoys into Warrington council last summer—it is an authority with a debt of around £1.8 billion. I appreciate that nothing in the draft order, of itself, will change the status of that debt as something owned by Warrington council, but the arrival into this combined authority of one council with such a comparatively large level of debt raises questions. The first question is whether there is a risk that the mayoral precept is effectively bailing out the debt of one of those authorities. Alternatively, given that Warrington will be required to contribute financially, will it be able to raise the necessary funds through its own arrangements, since it has envoys in place whose job is essentially to manage down that debt pile, which is extremely large compared with the overall turnover of the authority? With those observations, which are largely about the process for reorganisation in these individual circumstances—as opposed to the principle, which we very much support—I close for the Opposition.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has outlined in very clear terms what any of us in this room could on behalf of our constituencies. There will be different local dynamics, but everywhere is suffering as a consequence of the increased taxes on businesses. Government Members might not wish to hear such messages from Opposition Members—and that is understandable, because this is politics—but they might listen to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). In Prime Minister’s questions, he said that “any wins” had been “wiped out” by the increase in business rates, compared with what was proposed through transitional relief, and he reported to the House 60% and 70% rises in business rates affecting his local pubs. I will conclude with some questions for the Minister. First, what is the net benefit of all these measures—the increases in business rates and the transitional relief—to local councils? We know from the local government finance settlement that two thirds of local authorities in England lost net funding from central Government as a consequence. Given the substantial increase in business rates income that this would imply, what will the overall impact on local government funding be? Secondly, what assessment has the Department made of the impact that this will have on high streets and local businesses in particular? Many of those business have been lobbying us because the family business tax, the rise in national insurance and the interaction with the changes in the point at which national insurance is charged have put huge pressure on them. The impact of these business rates on top of that is enormous. Thirdly, what role have the local reliefs, which were briefly touched on by the Minister and are set out in the explanatory memo, played in the determination of the funding settlement? Although the fig leaf is offered that local reliefs may be available, it is clear that the Government’s assumption is that all these increases will be implemented in full before any consideration is given to additional funding. What consideration has the Minister given to a return to the local authority business growth incentive business rates regime, which was designed to incentivise local authorities, through additional support from central Government, to look to create opportunities to support local businesses and high streets, in a way that we know was very effective? The Prime Minister said on 7 January that the Government were in talks to see “what further support and action we can take.” —[ Official Report , 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 260.] That was days after he acknowledged that as a result of this settlement, pubs and hospitality, in particular, “will struggle.” The question for Opposition Members is, is this it?