David Simmonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing, with cross-party support, a very wide-ranging debate. My starting point, having served 12 years as a London councillor under the last Labour Government and then 12 years as a London councillor under the previous coalition and Conservative Government, is that he should be careful what he wishes for when he has a debate on this subject. We can already see a pattern beginning to reassert itself in the finances of our local authorities in London and in local government generally. What sound like significant increases are announced, but while one hand gives, the other takes away. Extra funding that has been announced, for the most part comprises maximum possible rises in council tax, very large increases in business rates, and an assumption that local authorities will raise the maximum possible fees and charges from their residents, which is then deducted from any central Government support. We can see the imposition of that in decisions large and small. On the smaller side, we have had representations from London Councils about the impact of ringfenced grant funding to tackle homelessness, which reduces the freedom and flexibility of local authorities in the capital to deploy those resources to keep people off the streets. On a much more macro scale, we have the national insurance contributions rise, which, after additional Government support, leaves local authorities in England over £1 billion net worse off than before the Budget was announced. Many of us will have served through many years when there were announcements, such as significant rises in the single regeneration budget, and the establishment of the dedicated schools grant under the last Labour Government. However, as Members who experienced those announcements will know, that approach of starting with a standard spending assessment and then damping any increase that it could give rise to, especially impacting on outer London boroughs with a very significant level of social need, has had a significant long-term impact. If there is an apology to be made from the Opposition about our approach to finances in local government, it is that we did not go as far as we would have wished to, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), in redressing some of those imbalances. The very first council meeting I attended as a member of the public was the last one at which a Labour council ever set a budget in Hillingdon. An 18% council tax rise hit local residents, and the council made £40 million—then around 10% of its budget—in unspecified savings. Let us not succumb to any fiction that somehow we are entering a gilded age for the local authorities of our capital city. And of course, it comes at a time when we know that the pressures on local authorities are rising sharply. According to the charity St Mungo’s, there has been a 29% increase in rough sleeping in the capital compared with the equivalent period under the last Conservative Government. A huge impact on our economy—not just the business rate rises, but the loss of confidence and the lack of investment. Many Members have spoken eloquently about the pressures around homelessness—the shortage of housing. We have all been ambitious about that, but it is very striking if we look simply at the numbers. The serving Mayor, Sir Sadiq, was set a target by the last Government of around 100,000 new affordable homes. He set himself a target of 52,000—around half what central Government said he should be able to deliver. He actually delivered 35,000 new affordable homes. In total, in equivalent periods, the current Mayor has delivered 65,000 affordable homes, compared with 90,000 under his Conservative predecessor. Although we all share the ambition, we need the shared starting point as well, of recognising the challenges, including the impact of damping and the inner/outer London inequality. Those things have existed in our funding formula for a very long time, and they are part of a complex set of interactions that arise from not just the current Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and the Home Office. Many, many London local authorities are supporting significant numbers of asylum seekers. Hillingdon has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the whole country—a cost not currently funded at all by central Government, but contributing very significantly to the numbers of people needing to be housed and children to be cared for. That complex picture needs to be taken into account when we debate this issue. I have some asks and some requests to put to the Minister. Like others, I thank London Councils for its excellent work to consider not just the big picture of the quantum of financing, but the things that could be done, such as removing some of the ringfences that the Government have imposed on how those resources are deployed. The first ask is that, as the Government proceed with their processes on devolution, we look at a true shared decision-making arrangement. There is a risk that the devolution settlement will leave London as the only major devolved area with no formal agreement between the Mayor and the boroughs on shared decision making. We see much of that tension around housing. I ask the Government once again to look at a process around fairer funding, which has been worked on in the past, to begin to address the inequality of funding between inner and outer London. We know the origins of that lie in assumptions that are made about deprivation, but it manifests in almost every area of local government finance in London. We still see relatively very large amounts of grant going into inner-London local authorities with low-level council tax, which are also often the ones that are most able to raise revenue in other ways. If we compare parking revenue accounts, for example, London borough of Bexley raises £6 million a year and Hillingdon raises £3.8 million a year, all of which can contribute, to a limited extent, to things such as environmental and road improvements. The London borough of Westminster raises £70 million a year—a net contribution of over £40 million just for environmental projects alone. The capacity of local authorities in London to raise revenue is hugely variable, and not just about the costs imposed by the demographics. We need to make sure that we take that fully into account. I know that the Minister has been asked for this before on the Floor of the House, so I want to ask him to reconsider the position around national insurance contributions. We have just had an emergency Budget, and have been through a period of six months where it has become clear that the sums do not add up, but its impact—driving up the cost of children’s and adult’s social care, as well as every other part of public service in the capital—has been absolutely enormous. We have had representations from every single London borough about the impact of that. There were promises made that that would be mitigated, and we need to see them fulfilled. Let me finish with an important point. It seems to me that all Members here, on a cross-party basis, have done their best to speak up from east to west, from inner to outer, for the interests of residents in the capital. We know that those challenges will be significant. I say gently to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the rises in charges are 5%, not exponential.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Construction Standards: New Build Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I would not describe that as a lost opportunity, but it is an opportunity that we need to consider. We recognise that we have a new Government with aspirations for housing. We had a Government who, despite all the challenges, set themselves a target of about 1 million homes and came very close to delivering on that during the life of the previous Parliament, but as I frequently point out in debates, we need to ensure that we are not simply thinking about the numbers of units. The 1.5 million target is not something we can achieve by packing the highest number of properties—studio flats—into various locations. We need to think about the nature of the homes and the type of housing that communities need, and about how a more nuanced approach can ensure that we build homes that support our housing market. For example, people may wish to downsize or to move because of disability, and to find accommodation that is fit for purpose in their local area. A number of Members touched on the role that building control services play in signing off developments to assure that they are fit for purpose. All the debate, as reflected on by Members across the House, has demonstrated the complexity of this issue: fire safety is considered through the lens of one set of legislation; building control is about fitness of construction standards; the local authority has its planning responsibilities to ensure that what is built is what has planning consent; and, too, there is the insurance industry, which in essence is a private market that decides for itself what it considers fit to be an insurable and occupiable property. That has enormous influence. In my constituency, I have the former Royal Air Force Lime Grove development constructed by Taylor Wimpey, where I have been engaging with constituents since I was first elected. That has been a very slow process, not least because things such as drainage have been built well below the standard required and can only be rectified if we are prepared to demolish all the homes that sit on top of that drainage. Those kinds of challenges are enormously complicated. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for the points they made. They described from their personal experience how they engaged with developments that took place in their constituencies in different ways—to enable new occupiers to bring to wider public attention the concerns that they identified, to hold local authorities to account for failure or lack of action, to deal with issues that were patently obvious and needed to be addressed, and to deal with some of the legal complexities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk described. It is all very well having a contract and legal rights in theory, but if those rights cannot be enforced, they do not lead down a useful path. If we were in government, we would be taking forward these matters, but as we are in opposition, we are challenging the Government to consider them. I will make a few brief points in that respect. A number of Members have highlighted adoptable standards as a significant issue that needs addressing. In encouraging new planning applications to be delivered, I encourage the Government to consider how we will ensure that adoptable standards are complied with. Members on all sides have raised a number of examples of subsequent landlords, such as FirstPort, whose management of the sites has been completely inadequate and compounds the other problems that have been described. Finally, as we consider the learning from the Grenfell report, which highlights just how complex these projects are to manage, can we ensure that the learning described by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), where the private sector and the local authority worked well together to bring innovation to bear and to ensure higher standards, is put into the structures of our legal approaches when it comes to all the different issues around development, housing, planning and building control described by Members across the Chamber this evening?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Construction Standards: New Build Homes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you once again, Ms Jardine. I, too, add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate. I was reflecting, as we watched House staff go about their business, that Hansard will record all the words that have been spoken by Members in this debate. Indeed, they will mirror some of the historical records of ancient Rome and ancient China, when politicians complained about the quality of the construction of the Great Wall and many iconic buildings, and reflected on what could be done to ensure that buildings were constructed to the standard needed. Of course, for each new generation the specific challenges change. We have different aspirations for the standard of our homes, as well as different technology and construction methods, and we need to ensure that what is built is fit for purpose. Although its focus has been on new homes, the debate has been wide ranging, touching on elements of housing tenure and the implications for the ability of occupiers to get change dealt with, the complications of the legal situation around warranties and insurances, and the challenges reflected in the ability or otherwise of local authorities to address complaints when they are brought forward. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) started out talking about tenant satisfaction. It is striking that, on the whole, people in the UK describe a high level of satisfaction with their accommodation, private renters being the most satisfied. Beneath that, however, as the hon. Gentleman set out, there are a number of challenges. I encourage the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest to make contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—a forest theme seems to be emerging among Members raising this issue—who has a private Member’s Bill specifically on consumer protection for those who commission building work. That would begin to address in law many of the issues that have been raised this evening. Indeed, earlier today I informed a group of housing associations about the need to appoint a clerk of works for new developments—someone who is there every single day, monitoring on their behalf exactly what is being constructed, in order to ensure that the kind of problems that Members across the Chamber have described are not present when they come to undertake the landlord role in those properties. The Federation of Master Builders has a number of proposals to ensure that the construction industry in the UK adopts significantly higher standards, not only building on the experience of other countries but reflecting the particular circumstances of the UK housing market.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The debate on this Bill has been comprehensive. I rise to support a number of amendments to this Bill that hon. Friends have tabled, but I open on a point that has already been much debated, not only yesterday but during the Bill’s earlier stages. The Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that she regards the safety of children as being the Government’s highest priority, but the Government’s absolute refusal to countenance the amendments and proposals on equal protection demonstrates a lack of will to follow most other countries in implementing laws that provide that level of protection to children. That remains enormously disappointing, and will be an outstanding issue, in terms of child protection, for the foreseeable future. The measures before the House are primarily concerned with schools. I would like to back up a number of colleagues who have set out the long-standing cross-party nature of the measures that underpin the success of the education system in England. I was a governor at one of the first schools to ever become an academy. It was sponsored by a significant Labour party donor, who came forward to support a Conservative local authority that engaged with that programme. I also pay tribute to the work done by the Liberal Democrat Minister David Laws. He attended Cabinet as the Minister for school standards when the Academies Act 2010, which underpins everything structural that has driven forward academy standards, was implemented under the coalition Government. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) disowning the contribution that the Liberal Democrats made, on a cross-party basis, to driving up school standards in England over the years.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we pay tribute to the work that David Laws did. As a key part of that coalition, he shaped the legislation that underpinned all the actions that followed, by the coalition and by Conservative Education Secretaries in majority Conservative Governments. We all need to recognise not only that education is a shared priority, but that all parties contributed to driving things forward and creating these structures over the years. I have a degree of sympathy with the Government on an issue that they are trying to address. It has always been a legal conundrum that successive education Acts have place detailed, specific legal obligations on local authorities regarding the provision of school places in general, and the provision of education to individual children to whom they owe a duty, but there are times when that is in conflict with the fact that academy schools are their own admissions authorities. That is not new; it has been true of faith schools for many years. Most of us in this House will have had casework arising from parents being frustrated about the difficulties in their relationship with their child’s school. However, a number of my hon. Friends have made the point that most of the measures in this Bill are not about relieving those issues that can be burdensome for families and children, but are about imposing much more centralised control over what goes on in the education system in England, where school standards have powered ahead of those that we see in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Labour-run Wales. The outset of my journey on this issue was in the dying days of the last Labour Government, when I was a member of, and then chair of, the National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers. That body, as an employer, provides evidence to determine pay and conditions for school teachers. We might generally conjecture, as members of the public or as members of the political establishment, that that would be a fairly light-touch responsibility—that we would take a strategic interest in the workforce, and occasionally give advice and guidance. I was surprised to discover that we were to attend, with 17 unions, a weekly meeting with the then Secretary of State, Ed Balls, and his deputy Jim Knight, at the then Department for Children, Schools and Families, in which those unions would provide Ministers with a detailed list of their expectations for how every aspect of education policy would be micromanaged. Those regular weekly meetings came to an end with the election of the coalition Government, but I am aware that they have resumed since the election last year. We have heard admissions from Ministers about how rarely they have engaged with school leaders, and have noted a great reluctance to say how often they engage with those who represent the union interests.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I invite the Minister to say how often she has been meeting those school leaders. We have also seen a move to re-establish the school support staff negotiating body. I had the privilege of chairing the employers’ side of that body. Its purpose was not only to give the teaching unions a voice on every aspect of education, but to support staff. One of the big challenges for the last Labour Government was the fact that the teaching unions hated the idea that school support staff would have that voice when it came to what went on in the classroom. It is, again, a cause for concern that the priority for the new Government is not to ask themselves, “How can we build on the progress that we have made with policies that we established and principles that we introduced?”, but to ask themselves, “How can we revert to giving control to those with a vested interest in how much money is spent, rather than those with a vested interest in the attainment of the children in all our schools?” That is why it is so important for us to support new clause 38. In government, we should have taken the opportunity to “extend freedoms over pay and conditions to…maintained schools”, but the present Government, who say that they regard education as a priority, now have that opportunity. They have the opportunity to create a genuinely level playing field, so that, appropriately, the maintained schools that have been some of the main drivers of the progress in reading and mathematics among the youngest children, which is one of the proudest achievements of the past decade, can also secure teachers of the highest quality. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the unions’ demand that no one should teach in a classroom without qualified teacher status will not apply to university technical colleges. We know that UTCs have sometimes struggled in the current educational landscape. UTC Heathrow in my constituency, for instance, introduced an educational offer for a group of young people who might otherwise find it difficult to gain access to the type of education that would give them the start in life that they need. That is an example of success and an opportunity on which we could build, but instead it is being overlooked and potentially undermined by measures on the national curriculum. It is hard to understand how an aviation-focused UTC closely connected with Heathrow airport, providing employment opportunities and a chance to access apprenticeships, gain technical skills and learn about catering and retail, would be well served by our prohibiting the people who know about those matters from doing their work unless they have qualified teacher status. We must ensure that we retain that element of diversity and opportunity in our education system—that diversity of provision and style that was always intended to underpin academisation, but which is now at serious risk of being lost. There is clearly a need to reconcile the legal impositions on local authorities—for example, the need to balance the local education budget, which is legally part of the council tax, though we are yet to see a solution that would not have an unacceptable impact on local residents, and the legal obligation on local authorities to provide places—with the lack of any legal obligation on the Government to ensure that those elements are properly funded. However, on the substance of the Bill, even with the very sound amendments that we are seeking to pass, it is, essentially, a shopping list of union demands. What the Minister describes as a mission is a mission without a purpose. There is no sense in the Bill of how we are to take forward the progress we have made, what we want to achieve for our disadvantaged children, what targets we might set and how we might go about meeting them, and how we might unleash the sense of aspiration that exists in so many of our communities. People ask what developments we could be proud of when we left office. When we left office, youth unemployment was half what it had been under the last Labour Government, and there were 4 million more people in work than there were when they left office. Much of that is down to the brilliant progress that was made by so many of our schools in transforming education standards. This Government should hang their heads in shame, because all they can do is come forward with a shopping list of union demands and not for a moment put forward the needs of the children of this country.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, David Lawrence, a former Labour parliamentary candidate, put out a public statement saying that he was pleased to be “invited to No. 10 for a preview of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill”, a landmark piece of legislation yet to see the light of day in this House, despite a number of statements from Ministers about how significant and important it would be. May I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that important legislation deserving the scrutiny of Parliament is first seen in this House, not shared offline with Labour parliamentary candidates?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I will start with a confession: I am one of the readers of The Guardian on the Conservative Benches, and I pay tribute to the helpful article it published today with the latest update of what has been happening in the world of political donations. It illustrates that, despite the increase in spending limits set out in the previous Parliament, the spend at the last general election reduced as political parties on all sides reined in their spending. The article also sets out in some detail the fundraising efforts of the parties in the Chamber and helps to put some of the figures quoted in public debates into context. While there may be those promising to donate $100 million to British political parties, the party in question managed to raise £280,000 over that quarter, which is approximately an eighth of the funds raised by my party and a bit less than a quarter of the funds raised by the Labour party over the same period. As a dedicated fan of Private Eye , it is clear to me that the transparency brought by the reporting of these donations is enormously helpful; indeed, it has led to many of the contributions to the debate. On the whole, the debate has been positive, by and large avoiding much of the casting of aspersions we often see and focusing on the practicalities. I have some brief points to make and then some questions to put to the Minister that are very much about the practicalities of taking forward the work that is under way. First, there is the need to respond as political parties and a state to the evolving roster of challenges that we face. We know that practices are being imported from the United States, such as the funding of issue-based campaigns, which have enormous political impact, including on the election of politicians, but are not donations to specific political parties. The Opposition would clearly be keen to work with the Government to ensure that donations for a political purpose—without being to a political party—are open to the appropriate level of scrutiny. A loophole has recently been created by the decision of Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland to extend the franchise to a greater proportion of foreign citizens, allowing them to vote in British elections, because the principle that underpins reporting is that people can donate to a political party only in an election where they are also able to vote. The fact that two areas of our country have different rules on that enables such citizens to donate to those parties, because the political parties there operate nationally. That is a loophole and an issue that I hope the Government will be addressing. Political finance is seen not just in the form of donation to political parties but in the lobbying, to which a number of hon. Members referred, the trips and the research input. In the last Parliament, there was the lobbying scandal that revolved around a Chinese spy donating about £700,000 to Labour party organisations. That is reflected in the challenge that has come from Opposition Members to the Government’s position on the Chinese embassy. While the Government may feel that it is a legitimate foreign policy objective to cosy up to China, many members across parties express the view that the influence of China in British politics is a significant concern. Let me put some questions to the Minister. First, why have the Government chosen to abandon the commitment made by Parliament and the last Government in the National Security Act 2023 to enhance the powers so that regulators, law enforcement and security services could share information with political parties? That process would have specifically helped to avoid the kind of situation that occurred with Labour’s Chinese spy problem, by enabling parties to be more informed about who the individuals are who are coming forward. Will the Government take steps to close the loophole created by the Labour Welsh Government and the SNP Scottish Government that, for the first time, allowed Russian, Chinese and Iranian citizens resident in those countries to donate to UK-wide politicians and political parties? Why has the Minister chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? While we recognise that the Government are pursuing greater trade with China, which is a legitimate political expectation, is that not a green light to the Chinese Communist party to enhance the degree of influence it seeks to transact in British politics? Does the Minister and do the Government accept that UK politicians themselves are low risk? It is important that we are here having this debate and seeking the highest possible standards. In the past, we saw gold-plating, with the politically exposed persons rules that saw parliamentarians on all sides of the Chamber being deprived of access to basic financial services. Does the Minister believe that we need to remove the risk of genuine, legitimate UK politicians being debanked because of their political views? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the context of the need to maintain consensus, why are the Government failing to consult the political parties on their plans for changes to political finance law, contrary to the precedent set by past Administrations of all parties? Does the Minister accept the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally seek to impose measures affecting political finance to their own partisan advantage? Will she undertake that there will be discussions with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and that there will be formal consultation with the parties? Will there be discussions through the so-called usual channels or on Privy Council terms? That way, we can ensure that in the context of electoral law that is complex—and for good reason: to protect the integrity of our democracy—we can retain cross-party confidence that those rules are not being used by the Government in pursuit of their own political advantage.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  Much in this statement builds on the work of the previous Government, and we share the new Government’s ambitions for the growth and renewal of our neighbourhoods and high streets, which are so fundamental to our constituents’ quality of life. As the Minister knows, there is a history behind this statement that links back to the desire of all our constituents to have a proper say in the development of their home area. In a country that is as grossly centralised, by democratic standards, as the UK, that local voice is vital. EU cohesion funds, which were the predecessor of the UK shared prosperity fund, were directly accountable to both the UK Government and local representatives. In the short timeframe in which the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was in effect, it sought to bring to bear a wide variety of national resources on exactly the challenges that the Minister referred to in his statement. There was a £2.6 billion fund allocated for regeneration and communities; the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which was specifically designed to support treasured assets such as pubs and theatres, where there was strong community support; and the £1.5 billion long-term plan for tax. We know that local leaders welcomed that investment, and many Members across the House spoke very warmly of the benefits to their constituents, so the challenge to the Government today is to set out how this very small and limited project sits against that much broader levelling-up ambition and, in particular, where it sits against the £3.6 billion towns fund set out under the previous Government. The House will acknowledge that this statement comes at a time when this Government’s financial decisions are bearing down very heavily on our communities. The massive rise in national insurance contributions, the increases in business rates on pubs, retail businesses and hospitality, the changes to business property relief and the multibillion-pound funding gap that opened up in council budgets as a result of the Government’s Budget last October all weigh very heavily in the balance against this modest announcement. That leaves aside the impact of the loss of things such as the rural services grant and the community ownership fund, which were specifically targeted at delivering support to communities that needed it. While we welcome this rebadging and rehashing of a scheme that we progressed when we were in office and its allocation to largely the same list of recipients, we have some questions to put to the Minister. The first is about the accountability of the proposed neighbourhood boards. It is a significant concern that the Minister finds time to say that the boards will include trade union representatives, but not to mention the democratically elected representatives of those local communities—a trend that sits alongside the changes in the proposed planning White Paper. Local democracy is vital if these boards are to work effectively. The second question is about the lack of a clear purpose for these resources. While it sounds like a positive thing to broaden the range of areas in which they can be spent, it is a serious concern that the Government again choose refurbishment and modernisation of social housing, which is already allocated for in other areas of local government funding. It begs the question of whether these funds will, in fact, go towards making up shortfalls that the Budget created in other areas of Government spending. Finally, there is real concern that broadening the criteria, and choosing to use generalised national statistics rather than local understanding of need to decide how to allocate funding, will mean that the resource is allocated in a way that simply does not reflect needs and local circumstances. A bidding process allows local authorities—which lead and represent their areas, and can identify particular needs—to come forward to Government and present a plan. The process of allocation that is being suggested creates a serious risk that those who can do the most to regenerate and benefit our high streets and communities will lose out in favour of those who are simply able to meet the criteria of Whitehall box-ticking.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Fire Safety: Local Authority Planning · Hansard source

  More

  We note that the Government have chosen not to take forward the Grenfell report recommendation relating to certification bodies on materials safety. Given the previous Minister’s failure to reply to my questions on the new use of European standards in respect of fire performance, will the new Minister assure the House that we can be absolutely confident that the fire safety performance regulations in place are clear, robust and effective?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Energy Efficiency Standards · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has highlighted, simply putting people out of their homes is not a solution to fuel poverty. Given that the figures very clearly show that the cost of the upgrades in many cases massively exceeds the financial benefit to either the tenant or the landlord, can the Minister give the House her personal assurance that this objective is realistic and achievable?

• 3 Mar 2025 · New Housing: Access to Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  We know that through the section 106 agreement progress, the planning system is very good at levying funds for new NHS facilities, but NHS Property Services has not always been effective at building those facilities out on time. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that across Government there will be an appropriate focus on ensuring that NHS Property Services delivers the facilities that planning has secured?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, to discuss a matter that members of the Committee clearly find riveting. The Minister referred to fixing foundations, so it is important for the Committee to note that the decision that we are asked to take this evening reflects the work and policy of the previous Government, introduced in 2013-14, which set a direction of travel on business rates whereby a greater proportion of the growth created at local authority level would be retained locally. It is a principle on which there has been a high degree of cross-party agreement for many years that those places that put the work in and see the local impact of growth should also benefit from that financially. Although I think we would all accept that it was a work in progress at the time of the last general election, I am pleased that the Government are at least continuing to operate the same system. I hope the Minister will consider how the principles that underlie this decision making can be rolled out further in the future. Essentially, business rates retention is about saying to local authorities that, rather than acting purely as collections authorities for central Government, they main retain locally a proportion of the money that they collect through the non-domestic rates process. It is part of an infrastructure that includes the pooling arrangements introduced under the previous Government, which were designed to ensure that that benefit was not seen solely by an individual local authority but, because significant business growth often has a wider regional impact, was able to be shared across groups of local authorities. In London, for example, there are a number of pooling arrangements whereby local authorities share some of the proceeds across a wider area. The Minister set out the impact and purpose of the arrangements for top-up and tariff authorities, but I have two questions for him to consider. First, although the change to the figure is very small, the regulations amend a previous set of measures that were introduced in a round of local government reorganisation that, following the abolition of Northamptonshire county council and its constituent districts, introduced the new North Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire local authorities. It would be helpful to know that, although the impact in this case is small, the Government will give a good deal of consideration to ensuring that, as the process of local government reorganisation that has been outlined by the Minister and his colleagues takes effect, all the possible calculations and impacts have been fully considered. We know from previous rounds of local government organisation—not just the one that is relevant here—that such changes can have a significant impact on the administration of a local authority subsequent to elections. The second question I would like the Minister briefly to address is this. We understand from the explanatory memorandum that the impact of these changes on the budgets of individual local authorities is negligible. However, it is noteworthy that most local authorities will have completed their budget-setting process in the past few weeks. Having, like the Minister, served many years in local government, I would be remiss if I did not flag that although the regulations will take effect immediately once they are passed—in effect, they come into effect tomorrow—it is good practice to ensure that local authorities have all the information before them when they make a decision. Business rates variations can have a significant impact on local authorities, especially if there are changes to pooling, or if a local authority finds itself switched from a top-up to a tariff authority or the other way round. All those things would normally be taken into account in the budget-setting process, of which the non-domestic rates are, by statute, a part. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could assure the Committee that the Department will work to ensure that, where instruments will have an impact, as these regulations do, decisions are taken so that they can legally form part of the council’s budget fixing, rather than being passed by Parliament—although it is legal for it to do so—after the budgetary decisions on which they have a bearing have already been taken.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s offer—I am sure we will take him up on that—but can he give the Committee an assurance that such technical programmes are encompassing all of those Departments that have a direct stake in local government? For example, previous reorganisations have sometimes resulted in special educational needs and disability school facilities being entirely within one of the resultant local authorities, with another having a significant general fund revenue cost—which would be visible in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—in transporting children across the border to access those schools that have, in fact, always been the traditional schools enabling that county. That can have a significant financial impact, and it would be good to know that those kinds of measures are being considered fully across Government.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The increased pace of Government decision making on refugee applications is discharging growing numbers of people into the responsibility of local authorities. On top of that, my constituents in the London borough of Hillingdon face an additional £1.2 million council tax cost to support Chagossians displaced to the UK by the uncertainty created through the Government’s stance on the Chagos islands. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the impact of asylum, refugee and border policy on our local authorities?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Rental Auctions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Vickers, and to have been present for this wide-ranging debate. I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) will be pleased: anyone watching this debate, and seeing so many of our colleagues over in the main Chamber debating issues around family businesses, will welcome the focus that this debate brings to our high streets, that large and important part of our economy. We are debating these issues at a time when, based on the figures across the country, growth is down, jobs, vacancies and hiring are down, investment by businesses in the UK is down and inflation is up. While there is always a political debate to be had about the causes behind those factors, it is clear that last October’s Budget had a significant impact. It is important to consider how measures such as the one at the anchor of this debate, high street rental auctions, can be used to address those challenges by local and regional authorities and by the new mayors that the Government are proposing to bring in across the country. Our high streets have faced many interrelated pressures in recent years. Members have referred to the impact of online shopping on consumer habits and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. When our high streets and retail were to some extent closed, or significantly restricted, it drove a rapid change in consumer behaviour that we see reflected in patterns of business investment across the country. All those issues have created a challenge for our local businesses in making sure both that their prices remain competitive and that they can draw in both the staff and the customers they require. Members have also referred to the impact of out-of-town shopping centres. Although many of our high streets and local business communities have been able to change and adapt, others have found it an ongoing challenge. At the tail end of the last century, I worked in a local bank on the village high street in Pinner in my constituency. That bank is no longer there—only the Nationwide remains as a financial provider on that high street—but there are no vacant units today because other forms of business have opened up, principally in hospitality. That has been a significant change in the way that high street operates. It is a great pleasure to represent a constituency with seven local high streets; I regularly host surgeries in those hospitality businesses as an opportunity to find out what is going on, and I know that many other Members do the same. The pressures that Members have described in this debate can be seen quite starkly in the figures. In the period between March 2020 and March 2022, we saw a loss of a net total of 9,300 retail units across the country. Some were converted into residential accommodation. Government policy, over many years and from all parties, has recognised the demand for housing and the changing nature of the high street, and that has enabled the conversion of those properties, where appropriate, to provide much-needed homes. Often, because of the nature of those conversions, they have provided additional customers for the remaining premises on the high streets. However, at the same time we have seen the loss of many cherished local businesses such as those Members have spoken of, and others, particularly independent retailers, continue to struggle. The high street rental auction policy was introduced under the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It was one of several measures taken by that Government, and it granted local authorities for the first time a power through a new initiative designed to bring new life to persistently vacant properties. When retail units are persistently empty, sometimes there are problems with absentee landlords and it can be enormously difficult to force the issue and bring the units back into use. Rental auctions are a significant new idea, alongside the investments through the future high streets fund and other schemes designed to ensure that high streets across the country remain sustainable. There will be much debate about the impact that that policy has had, especially given the changing habits of our constituents. However, when we look at the feedback from independent organisations in particular, there is a great deal of concern that, even set alongside the benefits that this policy could bring, the overall business environment is having a significant negative impact both on the viability of high street businesses and business in general, and on retail in particular. In recent comments, the British Retail Consortium comments said that the Government’s measure to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions—that single policy alone—is likely to lead to a net loss of 160,000 jobs over the next two years, in particular because of its impact on those large numbers of people who are in lower-paid, but flexible and part-time work. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that they remain extremely concerned about that bigger issue. There is also concern in respect of the changes being introduced to non-domestic rates—business rates—an assessment that has been shared by a very wide group of professionals. The Altus Group, a real estate company, released some research recently estimating that the big reduction in business rates discounts for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, which go from 75% to 40% in the next financial year, will result in a 140% increase in business rates bills at individual business level for around a quarter of a million high street premises in England. To put that into real money, an average shop currently paying £3,589 in business rates will see that bill rise to £8,613 from next April. Pubs, which many Members have cited in debates here and elsewhere, would see a typical bill rising from £3,938 to £9,451 a year. All these things represent significant increases in costs imposed on local businesses. We recognise in particular the shift under way in how larger high street premises will be treated. I know some of those changes in business rates have been described as an Amazon tax, but it is clear that they will have a particular impact on places such as larger supermarkets in town centre locations, which often provide the parking and the anchor store that brings people into our towns. The Conservatives therefore remain extremely concerned at the impact that that has. I am sure the Government will challenge us and say, “Well, what is your policy?” Clearly, we are in Opposition these days, and we did not have the opportunity to set out in Government a Budget to address this wider range of issues, but we know that preserving that strong growth and that steady and high rate of employment—the 4 million more people in work when we left office, and the halving of youth unemployment—was down to our sustained focus on the economy to sustain the buoyant high streets and local employment, the growth and the living standards that we all expect. In conclusion, while this policy is important, we need to continue to see it as part of a package of vital measures that are there to sustain not just our high streets, but the commercial life of our nation. It is usually the voice of very big business that is heard in Parliament—a very large commercial concern with a public affairs team will find it very easy to make Parliamentarians pay attention to what it says—but around 70% of people employed in this country work in an enterprise with less than five staff in total. The vast majority of our constituents, the vast majority of people who work in our country, are in shops and small enterprises. We need to make sure that, while their collective voice can be difficult to translate, their interests are at the heart of our thinking and the role that those small businesses play is visible. Our neighbourhood is vital to our quality of life. There is a reason why post-war planners, setting out to build large new areas of social housing, chose to make sure that there were retail units and shop fronts on those sites, so that people had ready access to the sense of community that they support. We need to make sure that that is sustained, but sustained in the context of a world that is changing. As part of a Government and as politicians, we cannot second-guess or indeed directly change consumer behaviour through intervention, but we can support a wide range of businesses to ensure that we serve the widest possible interests of our community. For example, the shift to supermarket retail has helped to ensure that the UK has the second most affordable food, compared with household budgets, in the world. The shifting nature of our high streets means that, while there is less retail, there is more affordable hospitality and more of the good-quality, flexible and well-paid jobs that go with it. Demographic change is also significant. As the ageing population of our country looks for more hospitality close to home, it creates an opportunity for those businesses. We have seen retail units implementing schemes such as soft play, as larger numbers of children in local communities drive the changing face of local businesses and create new opportunities, benefiting those children socially and benefiting local employment. But I finish where I started. We are about to embark on a massive process of top-down local government reorganisation. We need to make sure that throughout all that turmoil, with policies such as high street rental auctions, what has been done for the high streets fund and the changes in business rates, we do not lose sight of how important our high streets and small businesses are. The consequences of the Government’s Budget can already be seen not just in business confidence and sentiment, but in the reducing numbers of jobs and vacancies, in falling investment and in rising inflation. The Government have an opportunity to listen not only to the Opposition, but to professionals and business owners, who are politically neutral but have the interests of businesses in these communities at heart. The Government have the chance to make changes in the wider interests of our nation.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard for debates on these matters in previous Parliaments, she will find those points being raised by Members from across the House—rightly so—with a view to moving the debate on to the decisions that have been made today. The Clapham review of the effectiveness of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was a key opportunity to consider the role that local government in particular plays in the regeneration of our coalfields. Clearly, that challenge exists at a number of levels. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) referenced the large number of spoil heaps—some of which I can see from the garden of my parents’ house. A number of local authorities—and Governments, through local authorities —have sought to address that through planting and remediation to stabilise their spoil tips, for example, but there is still a job to do. As the years go by and the industries that produce those spoil tips become historical, we know that we must effectively address the risks that they continue to pose. To conclude my remarks, I turn to the importance of learning from the work that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust undertook and from the points that many Members of all parties have made in debates about these issues over many years. We know that we are about to embark on a process. The UK has made progress in the decarbonisation of our economy since the early 1990s, when, as a leading nation, we began the major shift away from coal. In the 1950s, coal produced most of our energy; today, it contributes to none—our last coal-fired power station recently closed. The Trades Union Congress recently passed a motion highlighting that 30,000 jobs were at risk in the oil and gas industry. We talk about the just transition—Labour Members are, in my view, justified in raising the problems that process has created—but we must lay the groundwork for it. I remember interventions during the miners’ strike, such as the distribution at my school of the EEC butter mountain. That is not an example of an effective economic intervention to address the needs of people in difficulty. If we are to have a just transition away from fossil fuels in the future, we must learn from the past mistakes of all Governments in respect of coalfields, and incorporate the lessons into effective policy for a better future for all affected communities.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Government will wish to press that point. In summing up, it is important, first, to recognise the impact that the end of the use of coal in British industry and energy generation has had; and secondly, to draw out of that history some lessons for what is often termed the just transition—the intended end of oil and gas as a significant player in our energy industries of the future. When I was growing up, the Thatcher Government’s engagement on investment was largely with the European Economic Community. I saw the roads being built and the blue flags appearing all over as the Government sought to bring in infrastructure investment to open up places like Cwmcarn—a valley off a valley, which is a challenge to access—and communities of coal board houses, where my sister and her husband still live to this day, so that people could access the growing industries and employment opportunities of the future. The Government at that time recognised that the infrastructure to create that access would be vital.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  As we see in all the debates that we have in this House, Members will attend to represent the interests of their communities and constituencies. I know that the same point has been made in the past about the lack of Members of Parliament from certain parties attending debates on farming and things such as that. We need to recognise that the central focus of this debate is on the historical impact and the way that we deal with that legacy. As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, there are, to my regret, not many Conservative Members of Parliament who are dealing with those issues in their constituencies. That is a political fact. However, we will see them very active on issues that directly impact their constituencies on a daily basis.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate. The House will know that Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is not a coalfields constituency. Our mining tradition is far older. It goes back to the days of chalk. Its legacy today is seen in the impact of sinkholes in the local area. Today’s debate is very much focused on the lasting legacy and impact of an era when coal was king. Although I do not represent a coalfields constituency, I certainly grew up in one. The old men with the blue scars and the hacking coughs from emphysema—or pneumoconiosis, as we now know it to be—were the background to my childhood. I feel lucky that I had a great-grandfather who, unlike many miners, lived a very long life. He started working in a pit at Cwmcarn at the age of 12 and carried on to the age of 70. He shared the impact of things such as the Universal Colliery disaster in Senghenydd on his life and the community in which he lived and grew up, and of seeing his brother die after being buried in a rockfall. Although the industry created the enormous economic opportunities that have been described by many Members, we know that the environment was very harsh and difficult, and as we recognise in our many debates about climate change and the transition to net zero, it created a product that, although valuable and effective at generating energy, is enormously polluting.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that all those former Members of Parliament, and, indeed, some of their Labour predecessors, would also be happy to answer for the work they did, some of which was successful and some of which was not, to bring new jobs, opportunities and educational chances to those communities. There are many things we can debate that have brought benefits to those communities. If we examine the statistics in the Library briefing on the impact and legacy in different coalfields around the UK, we see quite a different picture. There are some places where those interventions—based on the statistics—appear to have been effective because there are few, if any, super output areas listed that remain affected by those issues of poverty and ill health today, and there are other areas that have struggled to move on. We all know and understand why that is in some places. If the economy of an area has long been based on mining and natural resource, and there is no other direct employment opportunity there, something different needs to be found, and many Members have referred to the impact of that. I have touched on infra- structure as one element.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I remember those debates, of course, as the backdrop to my experiences growing up, along with the miners’ strike and the various interventions that occurred. There is an opportunity—I will put it this way—to learn lessons from that and ensure that the new Government’s approach and future Governments’ approaches take those into account and handle those situations better.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association. It has been an excellent debate, and I applaud the many Members on both sides of the House who have made insightful contributions to the discussion. Not only have they brought up issues affecting their own constituency —as, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out so powerfully in his speech—but Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), speaking in his capacity as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, set out a number of really important points that will affect the detail of how this plays out at local level. I am glad that the Minister touched on those points in his introduction. As the House knows, local government in the UK spends around £40 billion of taxpayers’ money and over 800 different services are delivered by the average local authority. As a consequence, this issue touches the lives of more constituents than almost any other area of government activity. The starting point that we have to recognise is the one that was made by the chairman of the County Councils Network, who said that from the perspective of local authorities, this was the worst settlement in years. It is clear from the Minister’s introduction that he is a Minister who knows his WOECAT from his BRB from his persnuffle, but the impact of that detail matters so much. In particular, the most significant element is the imposition of employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget. According to the estimates of the Local Government Association, local authorities face more than £1 billion in unfunded costs arising from that alone. Harlow council, for example, has set out that this settlement represents a 21% cut in its core funding, within which it will receive £198,000 of revenue support in this year only for over £1 million of additional direct costs from national insurance contributions. That cost will rise to £1.2 million next year, with—as currently projected—no funding provided at all. The Institute for Government has analysed the Government’s Budget overall, and when it looks at those elements affecting local government, it says that the Budget is “heavily front-loaded”—there is additional funding this year—but that the current plans set out by the Chancellor imply that there will be cuts in every year for the remainder of the Parliament, which will make it very “difficult for…local government…to improve”. We need to recognise that although there will be winners and losers, this is a budget settlement for local government that contains an enormous number of challenges, and there remain a number of very significant questions, which I will come to in a moment. I welcome the point made by a number of Members about the value that we place on our local councillors. I have spoken to the Minister, and I agree with the point raised by a number of Members about restoring the access of councillors in England to the local government pension scheme. We must demonstrate the value that we place on local leadership, and that will be even more significant in the context of extensive local government reform. I know that is something Ministers are considering, and that its cost is minimal in the context of the overall local government finance settlement. As many Members have pointed out, motiving local leadership is vital to getting this right. With the reduction in the number of councillors and local politicians, in a country whose population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, we must ensure that that growing democratic deficit is addressed by engaged, effective local politicians with the ability to make decisions in their area. Let us look at where the money is going, where it is coming from and how that is changed. As the Minister knows, around three-quarters of council funding is spent on social care, and since the fair access criteria that were introduced by the last Labour Government, that is no longer a matter of local decision making. It is largely a statutory duty, where clear rules are set out in guidance from central Government about how that money will be spent, and how each resident and each constituency can help and will be treated. As a consequence, the bulk of funding going into the system is being spent on what we might describe as the “must dos”, rather than the “nice to haves”, and the fulfilment of clearly defined statutory duties. If we cast our minds back to the last local government report of this nature under the previous Labour Government, we see a much longer report than the one before the House this evening. That report sets out the relative needs formula, which was the methodology used for the distribution of funding for all manner of different areas of local government activity. In 2010, around 25% of local government resources came from council tax, 27% came from the formula grant, which was essentially a redistribution of business rates, and 48%—very nearly half—came from specific grants, of which around two-thirds was the education budget. One of the big changes that has taken place over that period is the growth in the independence of schools and the rise of academies, and therefore a much larger share of that funding no longer sits within the local authority budget but is paid by the Education and Skills Funding Agency direct to schools. While that funding is no longer part of the council’s budget, it is still being spent locally on the same services that it always was. A lot of debate in the House on local government has been about devolution, and one of the most significant areas of devolution regards financial responsibility. If we reflect on those same formula elements today, 52% of council spending is derived from council tax, directly under local control, and 27% comes from a grown share of business rates pooling, with a focus on incentivising councils to deliver growth. A much lower 22% comes from grant funding, as the Government sought to give local authorities over that 14-year period a much greater degree of control over their own resources. When we reflect on what that formula also tells us, as a number of Members have said, the decision to scrap things such as the rural services delivery grant reflects a criticism of the priorities set out by the previous Government. We must also reflect that when we look at the list of the lowest funded councils in 1997, in 2010, and today, we find broadly the same set of local authorities on that list. The consequence of that is clear: no Government can cut funding that the council did not have in the first place. While most Conservative, and particularly rural, authorities did not see any benefit, or no significant benefit in funding through the indices of multiple deprivation, for the most part, the Conservative Government for 14 years maintained a significant premium of funding to areas for things such as children on free school meals going into education and in ensuring that deprivation formulas continued to play a significant part in the distribution of social care resources. The rural services delivery grant was a small step towards recognising, in the distribution of local government funding, the additional costs that were faced by places that had never seen any benefit from any Government. Members from all parts of the House—particularly Labour Members newly elected to rural areas—have said how awful it is that their local authorities are challenged by costs such as potholes and maintaining rural roads. Wait until they find out who decided to take away the rural services delivery grant, which would have provided the resources to deal with that. The biggest challenge that all local authorities face will be dealing in parallel with reorganisation and the tight financial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said in the statement on devolution, it is clear that the Government—I respect the fact that they have been clear about this in their statements to the House—have made a decision in Whitehall about the form that they expect to see local government in England taking. It is also clear that they will ensure that that is implemented initially through local authorities coming forward as volunteers, and subsequently through a statutory invitation to ensure that they do. I hope that the Minister will address a number of those points in summing up. The report is principally about the revenue support grant: local authorities do not yet know where they stand on the public health grant. They do not yet clearly know where they stand on schools funding. They do not yet clearly know the impact of Government announcements on the housing revenue account or the parking revenue account, all of which will have a significant impact. In particular, the statutory override on the dedicated schools grant for SEND remains uncertain and a significant budget pressure. Let me finish where my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton finished: if the Government can find £18 billion to cover the cost of the Chagos Islands deal, I am sure they can find the funds to make a better fist of it for our local authorities.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister. I think most of us, certainly on the Conservative Benches—this was acknowledged with gentle humour by a number of colleagues—are determined to work together in a constructive way, because we recognise that this issue has a huge impact, but I have to ask the Minister a question. She referred to an “investment” of £538 million in respect of national insurance contributions. Does she really argue that it is an investment to raise taxes on one group of people to provide a grant to our local authorities to pay another government tax? Would it not surely be better to go for a lower tax, higher growth agenda, rather than seek to tax our way into prosperity, which does not have the best track record in economic history?