Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

Of course, nothing is going to distract me from focusing on the needs of leaseholders, and we remain fully committed to ensuring that the provisions and powers outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act are brought into force as soon as possible. It is important for us to go through the technical detail that is covered by the consultation, but we will bring forward those proposals in due course and as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are focusing on precisely that. That is why we have further strengthened national planning policy in respect of previously developed land—that is out to consultation at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows—and why our new homes accelerator is doing what is needed to unblock permission sites across the country. I refute the idea that house building is collapsing. We are dealing with the legacy of the previous Government’s decisions, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets, but starts are up, and applications are coming through the system.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

That is nothing new. In every one of the last 29 years, people who are lucky enough to have a modest property in the New Forest and a mansion in the city have come to me to complain about how much more their modest property in the forest costs them in council tax. I have told them that the one is subsidising the other, but people who are not in that fortunate position—young families in my parliamentary constituency with only one property—are subsidising the north and the cities, and they cannot afford it.

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Gareth Thomas]

The shadow Minister will remember that when the Conservative party took control of Harrow council four years ago, it did so on a promise of freezing council tax, which he presumably campaigned on. Instead, council tax has risen by 20% over the past four years. Will the shadow Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Pinner—indeed, of Harrow more generally—for his party saying one thing when it was campaigning and then doing exactly the reverse, increasing the cost of living for his constituents and mine?

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Graham Stuart]

It is far from my typical habit to get involved in political knockabout, but following that astonishing intervention that showed a total lack of self-awareness, does my hon. Friend remember the now Prime Minister saying that council tax would go up by “not a penny”? This settlement assumes an increase of 5% a year on low-income people in rural East Yorkshire at the same time that core funding is cut. That is a £200 hit for the smallest house in our area, while—as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said—very valuable homes in central London seem to pay a fraction of the amount.

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Mr Betts]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member completely remove from his memory what happened in the 14 years of his Government. I ask him to remember back to when this began in 2010, when council tax generated about 20% of council funding, and how it has grown over the years under the Conservative and coalition Governments to deliver more than half of local government funding. How can he say that this is a problem when his Government originated that process?

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.

[Mr Brash]

Sorry, they cancelled it; we initiated it.

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Danny Beales]

The hon. Member is very generous with his time. I always have a lot of time for him. He is talking about our constituents in Hillingdon. Is it not the case that the financial settlement of the previous Tory Government, which also included council tax, had a 7% cut to core spending power for our constituents in Hillingdon? This spending settlement has almost a 40% increase in core spending power for our constituents. [Interruption.] hon. Member seems rather depressed about this announcement. Surely that is fantastic news for our constituents. Does he not agree with me that thank God we have a Labour Government for Hillingdon?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Simmonds]

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.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current process for local government reorganisation is that there has been no direction on how the funding will work out? We have some proposals on the table that would leave enormously vast rural communities in constituencies such as mine neighbouring towns and urban centres that will see this as an opportunity to get what they want. This settlement does not give those rural councils any confidence that they will get the money they need once local government reorganisation has taken place.

[David Simmonds]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is right that massive savings were made after the financial crash in 2008—some would say around £40 billion over the coalition years. He would be horrified to learn that the only people suggesting cuts greater than £41 billion were those in the Labour party in their 2010 manifesto, which proposed £56 billion in cuts. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can look at the headlines of the time: “Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”. That was Alistair Darling in his 2010 Budget. Who began austerity? Who began the cuts? It was the Labour Government, who were planning to go further, faster and deeper, according to Alistair Darling, than the Liberal Democrats or the coalition did.

[David Simmonds]

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?

[Gideon Amos]

I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield.

I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area.

It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit.

Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves.

When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers.

When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister.

Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would?

While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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.

Draft Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026 Draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time.

As the Minister outlined, the purpose of the draft regulations is to round off the otherwise larger increases in business rates, but it is important to put that in context. A short time ago, we had a general election, in which the Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. I appreciate that the Treasury is currently hiring a new business rates tax adviser, but this issue is not going away.

In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to a 2,000% increase in the business rates applying to one of the pubs in her constituency. Previously, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had reported that a survey showed an average increase of 41% for hospitality businesses, 44.4% for music venues and 27% for independent shops in her constituency. The body that represents the United Kingdom’s gym and health providers, ukactive, reports an average increase of 60% in the business rates for which its members are liable. The National Pharmacy Association has reported that its members are having to remortgage their homes and put their life savings into their businesses to meet the business rate increases proposed by the Government. To date, over the last 12 months, there have been a net 200,000 job losses in the retail sector, which businesses report are primarily due to increases in business rates and national insurance contributions.

It is clear that that reflects a very substantial, permanently higher rate of business rates and an unwelcome U-turn by the Government. All of us can see the practical impact in our communities, and I would bet that there is not a Member in this room who has not been lobbied by local pubs, cafés and shops about the impact that this is having on their business.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is creating a perfect storm and that the reason so many people are getting in touch with us—many MPs on both sides of the House will have owners of pubs, restaurants and bars getting in touch with them—is that this business rates change will crystallise that? In coastal areas like Fylde, people have less money in their pockets, so there are fewer visitors to hospitality venues to start with. Those businesses already face significant cost increases because of changes to national insurance and other changes in the tax system. As a result, these 40%, 50% or 60% changes in business rates will be the final straw for many of those businesses.

[The Chair]

Order. We have an hour and a half to debate the regulations, but interventions must be a bit shorter.

[David Simmonds]

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?

[The Chair]

Before I invite Members to bob if they want to catch my eye, may I ask them to stick strictly within the confines of the draft regulations, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Today’s debate illustrates clearly how passionate Members are about their local high streets and the businesses in their constituencies, which I completely recognise. I will try to address Members’ comments.

The introduction of the permanently lower rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, paid for by the high-value multiplier, is just the first step in the Government’s programme to transform the business rates system, which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked me about. In September 2025, the Government published an interim “Transforming Business Rates” report to set out what we will do next to meet our objective of delivering a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget, a call for evidence was published on the role of business rates in business investment, which will help us to develop a system that better supports investment and economic growth. The transformation of the business rates system is a multi-year programme happening throughout this Parliament, with much more to come.

I turn to other issues. The hon. Member asked about the impact on local government. We hope that the revaluation will be, as much as possible, neutral. We will adjust the business rates retention scheme to offset the impact on local revenues.

[David Simmonds]

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?

[Samantha Dixon]

We do recognise that business rates make up about a quarter of local authorities’ core spending power and they support critical local services, but the revaluations maintain fairness in the system by redistributing business rate liabilities among ratepayers to reflect recent market conditions. Standard features of the business rates tax system mean that between financial years, tax take may increase or decrease due to inflation or changes in relief. Hon. Members will be aware that rates rise in line with inflation and change annually to reflect inflation. On the wider impact on local government, I will respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner in writing.

Members have raised the issue of the high street. It is important to note that the temporary and unfunded—I repeat unfunded—40% RHL relief for 2025-26 will end on 31 March, and will be replaced by the permanent lower retail, hospitality and leisure tax rates from 1 April. The change, coinciding with the revaluation, means that some retail, hospitality and leisure properties will need greater support to help them transition to their new bill.

We have provided exactly that through expanding the supporting small business relief scheme, which will, as I outlined, cap bill increases for ratepayers who are losing some or all of their small business rate relief, rural rate relief, 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief, or 2023 supporting small business relief, at the higher of either £800 or the equivalent transitional relief cap. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley put it most ably: to vote against this particular measure would be to see businesses facing higher bills, which is not what the Government want.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Chanceller announced at the Budget, the business rates support package, of which this relief is a part, will help ratepayers facing bill increases as a result of the revaluation to move gradually over time to their new liability. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter today, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Leaseholders, like renters and prospective homeowners, have been made big promises by this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of botched local government reorganisation, cuts to the budgets of two thirds of England’s local authorities, delays to elections and the wholesale abolition of housing and planning authorities in England’s shires on the delivery of those promises? This is just another promise that the Government are not going to deliver, is it not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Forgive me—I do not know whether the shadow Minister has come in on the wrong question—but I cannot see how local government reorganisation will, in any shape or form, influence in any way our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is no surprise that the Government sought to sneak this consultation out with the minimum level of attention, proposed, as it was, for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. We can all see that poverty is rising, driven by a shrinking economy and rising unemployment, combined with inflation running at 3.6% and higher energy bills. Rising business rates are crippling our businesses, and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this Government’s choices.

How does the settlement help our councils to deal with all that? First, it assumes that working people—all people—will pay higher taxes everywhere. We should not misunderstand the Minister’s words on core spending power. The settlement enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. Even if the inflation target of 2% is reached—which seems unlikely given that it is currently at 3.6%—the increase represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament, and that sector was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in national insurance contributions alone.

Resources at a local level are going backwards. This is a settlement that punishes efficiency, with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift—and I am sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement that introduces new, higher taxes on hospitality—voted for by every party in this Chamber besides the Conservatives—bearing down on investment and opportunity. It brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes—money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the Red Book, that is estimated to cost the Government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour Government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money—and here they go again.

This settlement repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs. The average English local authority delivers more than 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, and anywhere else with lots of retirees, face the high costs of adult social care but do not necessarily score highly on indices of deprivation, despite the costs being driven by statutory duties. The undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. As this Government hammer Wychavon and Stratford-on-Avon, they are also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield and Bolsover, which are among the places worst hit by this financial settlement.

The Government’s detachment from the consequences of their actions is striking, and all while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dodge the new high-value council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. All this is behind the smoke and mirrors that disguise from our local authorities the financial impact. They have been required to carry out their public budget consultations without having had sight of the impact of this settlement.

Let me conclude with some straightforward questions. Will the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this settlement on their council tax budgets? When will we debate the impact of the Government’s cuts to SEND capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise their decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises to bail out the consequences of their decisions? When will they provide clarity on the impact of their SEND proposals on council budgets? How will the Government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions?

Will the Minister admit to the House that this is a tax-raising, job-destroying, housing-hobbling, rate-raising, service-slashing, community-crippling, election-cancelling settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas?

[Alison McGovern]

I can hardly wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under the Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. We do not need to trade political insults to see the libraries closed, the parks left unmaintained and the damage done to councils, but I look forward to discussing this issue with the hon. Member across the Dispatch Box as we move forward, once he has talked to his own councils about the funding settlement they will be receiving.

The hon. Member asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on SEND. He will know that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for Education will bring forward plans in the new year, and I am working closely with Ministers in that Department to ensure that we get it right. I mentioned some of the details in my statement.

I do not recognise the picture described by the hon. Member on devolution, and I feel confident in saying that nor would the Minister for devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is in her place. She announced significant investment for the places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to ensure that our country grows as we wish it to.

Local Elections

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.

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

Let me respond to the question directly. Local elections will go ahead in 2026—that has been and continues to be our position. We are a responsible Government, so if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them, as the House would expect, but we are as up for elections as anyone else.

This is about our commitment to devolution, and the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star—our lodestar—in every decision that we make about devolution, so I am pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to six areas in the devolution priority programme. Once their mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund. In that way, we will ensure that our mayoral strategic authorities have the strong foundation to unlock the growth potential that we see in every part of the country.

The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. That is what we have seen in our established mayoral authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. The devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authorities. We want to allow for a meaningful period between the establishment of a strategic authority, and its mayoral elections.

We are also conscious that those places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation while building those new institutions. The Government are therefore minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that those areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation, build strong and effective unitaries, which is what we want, and establish their strategic authorities before their mayors take post. The inaugural mayoral elections will take place, but in the meantime we are determined to work with those areas to provide capacity funding, build the institutions, and strengthen their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. At the heart of everything we do is unlocking areas’ potential by building strong institutions that can do that job and working in partnership with them to achieve it.

[David Simmonds]

You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that

“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]

The following day, the Minister told the House:

“Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”.

She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead:

“It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.]

Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for.

Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is really important that we distinguish between two things. We have been absolutely consistent that local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it and getting ready for them. I hope the Opposition parties are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them, but these are inaugural mayoral elections that are predicated on us laying a statutory instrument, which we are still to lay, and having the consent of constituent authorities. It is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we are asking places to get through, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils that are going through the process of reorganisation, strong strategic authorities, and then a mayor. That is the right and rational decision. There is a clear distinction that I ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we have not had before.

On the economics, I will take the hon. Member’s question seriously, even though it was completely ridiculous. We are committed to unlocking areas’ economic potential, so we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the SI, so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the timeframe that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places. We are committed to that long-term investment. We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment pipeline and their programme.

At the heart of this—I will keep coming back to this—is a determination on the Government Benches to work with every part of the country to unlock their economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party they belong to. I hope all Members across the House will approach this in the same spirit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her responses this morning.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was making progress in Committee, the Minister was very clear that elections to local councils would be considered for cancellation on request from the affected local authorities. She has told the House this morning that, in fact, it will be done only in a pandemic or exceptional local circumstances. There is clearly some risk that the House may be inadvertently misled on what the decision-making criteria for that cancellation may be. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can gain the necessary clarity on what the decision-making process for the cancellation of council elections will be?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it was not a point of order but a continuation of the urgent question, and it could have been put to the Minister earlier. However, he has put his point on the record.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress.

Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.

The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.

The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:

“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]

During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:

“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as

“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.

You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds]

I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.

Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.

As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.

Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.

Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.

For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.

In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.

I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.

Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.

However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.

I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.

We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.