Local Government Best Value: Slough and Bedford Borough Councils

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to rewiring the relationship between central, local and regional government, returning power to people and places so that councils and communities can improve public services, drive growth and deliver better outcomes. Local institutions must be strong, with the right accountability, capacity and capability, and this Government are taking the action necessary to support the local government sector in building that strength and driving improvement.

Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in partnership with Slough borough council and Bedford borough council to support their recovery and reform.

Slough borough council

Slough borough council has been in intervention since December 2021, and extended in November 2024, with directions due to end on 30 November 2026. On 5 March 2026 the then Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness commissioned, due to ongoing concerns of the pace of improvement at the authority, an external review, led by Dame Mary Ney with support from Will Godfrey. The review was to assess Slough borough council’s improvement trajectory under intervention and identify what, if any, further support is required to drive immediate progress and to put the council on a long-term sustainable footing.

I would like to put on record my thanks to Dame Mary Ney and Will Godfrey. The report, which I am publishing today, makes a series of recommendations for the intervention. These include:

Embedding a sustainable senior leadership team to drive the council’s improvement and provide stability, to transition it to a more sustainable operating model.

A reset of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioner team to an oversight role; adoption of a single commissioner team with Department for Education.

A new, shared approach to political leadership and development, underpinned by the appointment of a political adviser.

A decision to move ahead with convergence of Slough Children First with the council.

Government support for Slough growth potential, to accelerate housing delivery and realise the opportunity of Heathrow expansion.

Subsequently the Slough commissioners have submitted their eighth report, outlining progress at the council. While progress has been made in some areas, it remains fragmented, and recovery remains slow, uneven and fragile. The council remains in a vulnerable financial position, with a forecast £20 million overspend, continued reliance on exceptional financial support and the need to closely review its debt repayment strategy to ensure it is managing down its high level of debt effectively. Governance remains underdeveloped, and serious weaknesses persist in key services, including children’s services, SEND and housing. Commissioners do not have confidence the council can sustain improvement without ongoing external support.

I have carefully considered the commissioners’ report, the external-led review and other relevant material. I am satisfied that Slough borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1999 to implement an intervention package that ensures the council’s compliance with its best value duty.

Proposed package

Having considered the external review recommendations and commissioners’ report, I believe that ongoing commissioner involvement is required to support the council into a place of sustainability and that stepping commissioners back too quickly would carry significant risk at this stage.

A key lesson we must learn from the last decade of intervention is that progress in one area is too often undermined by weakness in another and our intervention approach across the two Departments has been too fragmented to date. Children’s services will not be able to secure and sustain improvement while wider weaknesses in leadership, governance, and financial management persist across the organisation. I am therefore minded to refresh the commissioner team, working to shared DFE and MHCLG objectives, comprising of a lead commissioner, managing director commissioner, finance commissioner, and a SEND and children’s services commissioner—appointed jointly by DFE and MHCLG—alongside a political adviser to support the council ahead of, and following, the all-out elections in May 2027. It is my belief that this will provide the council with the continuity necessary to embed outstanding improvement activity, drive transformation and take forward the external review recommendations.

I envisage the appointment of commissioners until 30 November 2029, with a review of the progress of the intervention after 12 months.

Slough is a town of significant economic potential, and my Department will continue to work with commissioners and the council to harness that potential for the long-term benefit of its residents.

Bedford borough council

Best value inspection report

On 10 February 2026, the then Secretary of State commissioned a statutory inspection of Bedford borough council and its compliance with its best value duty. Paul Najsarek, Margaret Lee OBE and Tasnim Shawkat were appointed as inspectors and reported their findings to the Department in June 2026. I am publishing this report today, and extend my thanks to the inspectors for their diligent work and to the council and all participants for their co-operation.

The report identifies some strengths within the council, including within partnership working and in supporting the Universal project. It also notes the steps taken in response to external challenge, including an improvement plan and independent improvement and assurance panel, but concludes these are not yet sufficient to drive the urgent improvement required.

Overall, the report documents serious concerns across a number of areas:

On continuous improvement: the report notes that, despite extensive external support and challenge since 2023, the council has made limited progress in delivering the scale of transformation and change required. The inspectors “have no confidence that the necessary improvement will be secured without external intervention”.

On leadership: the report identifies challenges “in all parts of the organisation—politically and managerially”. Weak leadership and cross-party working has meant it has been unable to “confront its growing financial problems”.

On governance: the council’s governance arrangements lack the “clarity, grip or discipline needed to support timely and effective decision-making”. Inspectors assess they are not adequate for a council with a directly elected mayoral model operating without overall political control.

On culture: the report highlights a “negative culture” characterised by low trust, blame, defensiveness, silo working and weak accountability. Inspectors describe poor member-officer relationships, reports of bullying and misogynistic behaviour that had not been systematically addressed, low staff morale, and blurred boundaries between member and officer roles.

On use of resources: the report identifies “limited and insufficient evidence of action to improve” the council’s financial position, which remains unsustainable, with persistent overspends, significant shortfalls in its medium-term financial strategy, limited reserves and growing borrowing pressures. The council required exceptional financial support to set a balanced budget for 2025-26 and 2026-27.

Compliance with the best value duty

I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s review of 2025, the progress made since the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge of 2023 and updates since the inspection concluded, and I am satisfied that Bedford borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture, and use of resources.

The council must now work collaboratively and at pace to address the recommendations received to date and deliver sustained improvement.

I consider that the council needs intensive support to achieve this. I am minded to exercise my powers under the Local Government Act 1999 to issue statutory directions to the council and nominate commissioners with expertise in political and corporate leadership, transformation, governance and finance, and some with powers to exercise specified functions of the council. My proposal to appoint commissioners is not taken lightly, and recognises that, as the inspectors say, the council has a “limited track record of delivering transformation and change, despite the extensive external support already available”.

The council would be directed to prepare and agree a comprehensive improvement and recovery plan to the satisfaction of the commissioners, bringing together the full range of activity required to ensure compliance with its best value duty. Progress against this plan must be demonstrable, with commissioners reporting to the Secretary of State on progress at six-monthly intervals. The intervention will also strengthen the council’s capacity to work effectively with partners on major strategic projects, including Universal, helping maximise the benefits they bring to the borough.

My clear expectation is that the council should continue to lead and deliver its own improvement wherever possible, with the appointed commissioners providing oversight, challenge and support and exercising their powers to secure improvement. The proposed intervention will be in place for three years but should there be sufficient evidence of progress, powers over functions will be handed back to the council.

Representations

I am now inviting representations from the council and any interested parties, including residents, on the inspection report and the proposed intervention package by 28 October 2026.

I will carefully consider all representations and any other evidence received, before deciding how to proceed.

Conclusion

I remain committed to supporting both councils to secure the sustained improvement needed and deliver better outcomes for local residents.

I will deposit in the House Library a copy of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS383]

Combined Authority Best Value

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to a radical shift in where power and resources lie, empowering local leaders to drive growth and improve outcomes for their communities. But stronger local leadership must be matched by strong local institutions. As powers and investment increase, so too does the responsibility to demonstrate strong governance, sound financial management, transparent decision making and effective stewardship of public resources.

It is a matter of public record that, following the publication of the independent Tees Valley review in January 2024 and the mayor’s response, Ministers required further assurance of improvement. On 3 April 2025, the Department therefore issued Tees Valley combined authority with a non-statutory best value notice, which set expectations for improvement around governance, culture, partnerships and continuous improvement, including action to address recommendations from the 2024 independent review. That notice was due to be formally reviewed after 12 months.

The Department has engaged closely with the authority and its independent improvement and advisory board to scrutinise progress against the notice and the authority’s organisational improvement plan. I commend the commitment of officers and the engagement across the Cabinet and constituent authorities to support the authority’s improvement work. I recognise the complexity of unpicking historic governance and accounting issues, and that, as improvement work has progressed, further matters requiring attention have been identified. However, despite sustained improvement efforts, I am not yet assured that the authority has the capacity, capability or appropriate arrangements in place to respond with sufficient pace, transparency or consistency to the level of remaining risk.

In particular, I have material concerns about the authority’s long-term financial sustainability, given its high levels of debt, increasing borrowing and interest costs, and declining revenue reserves in recent years. I welcome the authority’s recent agreement of formal loan repayment arrangements with South Tees Development Corporation, including changes to strengthen Cabinet oversight. However, those steps do not in themselves provide assurance on the assumptions underpinning the repayment arrangements or the management of associated financial risks, on which I would like direct, independent assurance. More fundamentally, the effectiveness of these arrangements ultimately depends on strong leadership, governance and financial management, where broader concerns remain.

I note the external auditor’s indication in its 2024-25 audit update report that it is considering further exercise of its statutory powers in response to concerns about the authority’s governance and control environment and the delays in completing and signing off financial statements for 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Although governance and assurance improvements are in train, including through the development of the single assurance framework, I remain concerned about the scale of work outstanding to deliver and embed those improvements, and evidence their impact.

Having considered all available evidence to date, including from the authority, its independent advisory board and the external auditor, I consider there are signs of potential best value failure. 1 am therefore informing the House that the Secretary of State has today exercised powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint Laura Shoaf CBE as lead inspector, and, on Laura’s recommendation, will shortly appoint three assistant inspectors to carry out an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best value duty.

The inspection will provide an evidence-based assessment of the authority’s compliance with its best value duty, focusing on, but not limited to: governance and decision making across the authority; use of resources and audit and accounting arrangements; capacity and capability at leadership level and across the organisation; the adequacy of the authority’s plans and capacity to deliver its organisational excellence strategy; and how these functions and arrangements are impacting organisational culture, partnerships and community engagement, and service delivery.

Given the scale and complexity of the authority’s commercial and regeneration activities, I would welcome expert assurance that appropriate arrangements are in place to oversee and mitigate the associated risks.

Our new model of Government rests on strong and capable strategic and local authorities and I am committed to taking the action necessary to secure this. The best value framework is an established and proportionate accountability backstop. It supports improvement where concerns arise and enables intervention where necessary, acting to ensure that strategic authorities have the right accountability, capacity and capability that protects residents and public money, reinforces public confidence and provides a secure foundation for devolution’s resilience.

Further devolution will be rolled out as quickly as possible, and additional powers and control, as set out in the Cabinet statement, will be available to Tees Valley combined authority as with all mayoral strategic authorities, benefiting the people of the Tees Valley. Further detail on the approach, including any phasing, will be set out in the delivery plan this autumn.

My Department will continue to engage with and support the authority throughout this process. I will update the House once the inspection has concluded.

[HCWS384]

High Streets: Amber Valley

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate and for the passionate way that she continues to champion the community that she represents. I believe that she was a fantastic champion on the Denby issue, and all of us who care about our heritage and about good, skilled working-class jobs mourn its loss. The way that she continues to fight, to say that it is not the end of the community and to secure investment in the future, is really important.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to supporting high streets, both in Amber Valley and across the country. High streets matter because they are far more than just places to shop. They are where people meet friends, visit local businesses, access services and spend time together. When a high street succeeds, it can lift confidence in a place and support local economic growth, but when it struggles, the impact is felt across the whole community. That is why the Government have made this a priority.

I know that Amber Valley’s towns and communities have felt many of the same pressures seen across the country. Changes in shopping habits, vacant premises, crime and antisocial behaviour and the increasing challenge of attracting investment have all had an impact on our town centres, yet there are also real strengths to build on, including proud local businesses, active communities and a strong sense of local identity.

Amber Valley has been a recipient of regeneration funding, and the Heanor area received £8.59 million through the future high streets fund. That supported the improvements that my hon. Friend referenced in her speech, including to the marketplace, the restoration of the former grammar school and plans for new town centre housing. Those investments demonstrate the role that regeneration can play in preserving heritage, improving places and encouraging future growth, but it is quite clear that her ambition goes even further, into Alfreton and beyond. She mentioned the Somercotes theatre, which is a fantastic example. Hopefully I can give her some routes to which she might be able to apply.

The Government are making high streets a priority. On 27 September, we announced £210 million to bring derelict buildings back into use, to tackle vacancy and to support community ownership and control. We are introducing reforms that will benefit high streets across the country, and we are tackling long-term vacancies through the high street rental auctions. These powers enable councils to bring persistently vacant properties back into use and to make town centre premises more accessible to businesses and the community. More than 40 authorities are already using these new powers and have brought over 80 properties back into use. To accelerate delivery, we have announced a further £10 million to support councils, and we are reviewing new burdens funding payments to ensure that councils have the resources they need to implement these powers quickly.

We are also empowering communities to take a greater role in shaping their local high streets. Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, we have introduced a new community right to buy, helping local people take ownership of valued community assets such as pubs, shops and community buildings when they are at risk of being lost. We are also acting to tackle the issues that too often undermine confidence in our town centres. Through a £30 million crackdown on high street organised crime, stronger closure powers and the creation of a dedicated high street organised crime unit, we are supporting legitimate businesses and helping communities take back control of their high streets.

Retail crime remains a significant concern for local businesses. That is why, in addition to other measures, through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 we introduced a new offence of assaulting a retail worker and we have removed the £200 threshold for shop theft, making it clear that all shop theft is unacceptable and will be treated seriously.

We are also supporting businesses directly and have introduced permanently lower business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties alongside additional support for pubs and live music venues. We have also legislated to ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create a fairer and more flexible commercial property market that supports investment and reduces the risk of properties being empty long term.

Alongside that, the business growth service is helping small and medium-sized businesses to access advice and finance and support to start, grow and invest, ensuring that local businesses can continue to play their vital role at the heart of our town centres.

We recognise that communities want attractive high streets that reflect local character. That is why we are giving councils stronger powers to address the clustering of vape shops and gambling premises and supporting better standards for shopfronts and public open spaces.

However, we know that there is more to do. Later this year we will publish a new high streets strategy, setting out our longer-term plan for supporting businesses, bringing life back into our town centres and helping communities to shape the future of their high streets. The strategy is being developed in partnership with businesses, civic leaders and local communities, because we know that thriving high streets cannot be delivered by central Government alone.

Our ambition is clear: we want high streets that are safe, vibrant and economically successful, that are places where people want to invest, and, importantly, that are places that local people can be proud of. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to make the case for Amber Valley as that work progresses. I welcome her contribution to this conversation and all her hard work. I hope that we can meet soon to discuss the future success of the projects that she has mentioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s proposed overnight visitor levy on the tourism and hospitality sectors in England.

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

Last Thursday, the Government published their response to the consultation on the overnight visitor levy. The “rewiring the state” Cabinet announcement committed to

“delivering good growth in every part of the United Kingdom”.

The visitor levy supports that ambition by empowering local leaders to deliver transformational investment, building the reputation of areas across England as world-leading destinations. Local leaders will be able to choose to introduce the levy as a way to raise money to support growth in their region, including in the visitor economy.

Visitor levies are common in Europe and the rest of the world. All over the G7, countries already have some form of tourism or overnight accommodation levy in place. The Government have decided that both foundation strategic authorities and mayoral strategic authorities will be empowered to raise a levy to support growth in their areas. This approach means that places without a mayor will also be able to invest in their region, making them better places for residents and businesses, as well as for the people who visit and enjoy those areas. The levy will be set as a percentage of accommodation costs. That means that low-cost stays remain low cost, while those who can afford it will be able to contribute more to the places that they visit.

Strategic authorities will be required to consult before introducing a visitor levy. This will inform their decision on whether to introduce the levy, how much it would cost and how revenues would then be spent. We expect that local leaders will be able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by early 2028, and to introduce a levy before the end of this Parliament.

The Government have engaged with the tourism and hospitality sectors throughout the consultation, and we will continue to do so as the legislation is developed. The changes that the Labour Government are introducing will mean that more money will be invested in our high streets and public transport systems, and England’s tourism hotspots will directly benefit from visitor footfall to improve the area for people living there too.

[Rebecca Paul]

Let us call this what it is—Labour’s holiday tax. Although we knew it was coming, we never expected it to be uncapped. This Government have already hammered hospitality with higher employment costs and business rates. Almost 89,000 hospitality jobs have gone, and now what is Labour’s answer? Hit them again. If we tax something, we get less of it, so if we tax tourism, we will get less tourism—it is not complicated. Fewer tourists mean fewer jobs. UKHospitality estimates that up to 33,000 jobs will go, along with over £2 billion wiped from the economy. These job losses will hit young people hardest, when they are already struggling to secure those all-important first roles.

We should not make the mistake of thinking that this is just a tax on foreign visitors. Tax Policy Associates estimates that trips by British tourists will generate 63% of the revenue from this levy. This is a tax on hard-working British families. A weekend away, a family holiday or a few nights by the seaside will all cost more. Every pound taken in this tax is a pound that families do not spend in the local pub, restaurant, café, shop or attraction. It is not just Brits on a staycation who will be impacted—it will be anyone staying overnight for any reason, such as visiting a sick relative, going away on business or travelling for medical treatment. Why on earth should those people be taxed simply for going about their daily lives? It is not fair.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to give breathing space to households struggling with the cost of living, yet this tax does the exact opposite. British hospitality does not need another tax. Hard-working families do not need another tax. Young people looking for work do not need another tax. The Government must scrap the holiday tax.

[Jim McMahon]

Where do I start? We are not starting from year zero. The idea that the time under the previous Conservative Government was somehow “the good days” for our pubs, our hospitality industry and our tourism economy. Just think about the thousands of pubs that closed on their watch, and the bars, the restaurants and the live music venues that were left standing by themselves because they were ignored by the Government of the day. Well, now they have a Government on their side, which is why we have already introduced measures to give pubs and live music venues a 20% business rates cut, and we have targeted investment at our town centres and our high streets.

At the end of the day, it is not possible to go to a corner of England and not see somewhere that was impacted by all those years of austerity and the lack of investment that went alongside it. The question is: do we just accept that decline is inevitable and that the rot that the Conservatives allowed to set in across large parts of this country is a permanent fixture of our national character? Or do we decide that a different route can be taken, in which we invest in our economy and growth?

Importantly, we must see this measure through the prism of the new spirit of devolution, because there is no mandation—areas are not being made to introduce a levy. It is down to local leaders to make the right call for their area, to consult on those decisions and, importantly, to present back to their community where the investment will go. That will not just benefit people who are visiting. Investment in tourism hotspots in particular—in our great cities and countryside—and our rural economies will benefit the people who live there, because they will have better neighbourhood services provided. In the end, everyone will win.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

South Shields tourism is largely made up of families from neighbouring regions who have saved hard all year round to spend a few days at the seaside, and even if the increase from this measure is marginal, they will not come. My constituents, family-run B&Bs, caravan parks, hotels and wider hospitality industry have been unequivocal with me that they do not want this measure. It is the wrong tax at the worst time. The extra burden on their business will tip my local industry over. Devolution works only when it reflects what communities want, so will my hon. Friend confirm that MPs, who are voices and local leaders in their communities, will be at the forefront of these proposals?

[Jim McMahon]

I appreciate the question, and I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a champion over a long period of time for jobs in her community. I do not take her representations at all lightly, but there is not a part of the country where investment is not desperately needed to improve the visitor experience and the experience of people who live there. If we get this right—it will be down to our local mayors and local leaders to implement the investment—the truth is that everyone will benefit from the improved visitor experience.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?

[Jim McMahon]

There is no expectation that councils will see a cut in the way that the hon. Lady explains—I am not quite sure what the rationale is for that. This is a new levy that local areas can choose to bring in, but it is down to local leaders in both our mayoral strategic authorities and our foundation strategic authorities, working with their local councils, to determine if they want to do that, how they want to approach it, if they want to carry out a proper consultation and to set out where the spending and investment will follow. That is not central Government telling places what to do. It is time that we stop pretending that England is somehow one place and that one size can fit all. Devolution, if it matters, must mean that local leaders can make the right choice for their area.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a Cornish MP, I welcome this measure. It is important that local leaders, particularly those in non-mayoral areas, will get the opportunity to make this decision in consultation with businesses in their areas. Will the Minister confirm that emergency and temporary accommodation, as well as low-cost holiday options such as tents and caravans, could be excluded from the levy?

[Jim McMahon]

We will certainly set out more detail on the list of exemptions as the legislation is developed. Holiday hotspots such as Cornwall, the Lake district and many other parts of the country benefit hugely from tourism and support a huge range of jobs, but it is true to say that the impact of tourism comes with a cost, and it is right that that cost is met by a fair and proportionate levy on the people who benefit. With that, local areas will see the benefit and the investment that will follow.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I must admit that I am really puzzled by the Minister’s statement. The visitor levy is not going to be ringfenced for tourism, so how does he know that it will go to its intended destination? The levy will not be capped. We normally tax things to stop people doing them, not to encourage them to do more of them. What evidence can he offer to demonstrate that this measure will bring growth, as he says? What work have the Government actually done to prepare for this measure? How will they know whether hospitality businesses—let us face it, they are already collapsing in their droves following decisions that the Government have already taken—will survive yet another tax being imposed on them?

[Jim McMahon]

As I have set out, it is for local areas to decide whether this is right for their place. Importantly, on whether this is a new tax, every tax is of course a tax, but the question is: where is the accountability and where does that money go? Our mayors and foundation authorities will be required to set out in consultation how much they want to raise and for that to be proportionate to their local area, and to do an impact assessment of the proposed levy and, importantly, set out where the money will be invested.

In relation to places without a levy, just think about who pays for the impact of tourism, who puts on the events and performances that bring people into the local area, and what is the wider experience? I went away to North Yorkshire in the summer, and my experience was not just the accommodation we stayed in, but visiting the local village and the local town, and driving around the local area. We need to think about the visitor experience, which is wider than just the accommodation where people stay, because it is the place where they go.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I represent a seaside constituency in Bournemouth West, and the vast majority of my hoteliers are supportive of an overnight levy, in part because Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has axed its stand-alone tourism department, and because we get 10 million visitors every summer and no increase in resources to deal with that. In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that most other G7 and European nations have some sort of overnight levy, and people who have travelled in Europe are really used to that. Can he tell us what lessons the Government have taken from such experiences overseas?

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the champion she is for Bournemouth. I would reflect on how the experience there, with the cuts to local government over many years, has impacted the services on the ground that would have been provided—both the neighbourhood’s quality of place and the economic focus on tourism. We need to start rebuilding them, and this may be one way of doing so.

On the lessons learned, places may approach this with a flat rate, so no matter where people go, everyone will pay £5, or whatever. However, we believe that at its core this has to be fair and proportionate, so we ask ourselves, “Why should somebody visiting a guest house in Blackpool pay a flat fee in the way somebody visiting the Ritz here in London would?” That is not fair or proportionate, but a percentage rate is.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us try Andrew Snowden, who represents a nearby constituency.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. First we had a jobs tax that reduced the number of jobs in the economy, then we had a schools tax that reduced the number of children in independent schools, and then we had a farm tax that reduced the number of family farms. Given that correlation, have the Minister and the Government learned anything from this socialist tax-addicted way in which they are governing the country, and will the tourism tax do anything other than reduce tourism?

[Jim McMahon]

Taxes were high at almost every turn under the previous Government, but people could not see the benefits of where that tax was going. People desperately want the country to turn a corner, with the investment we collectively make through the taxes we pay—at national level, regional level or local level through our councils—ultimately meaning that the places we care about are improved as a result, and this is one way to do that.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that local communities get to decide whether to introduce this levy—that is a key part of devolution—but I am concerned about the pressures already on the hospitality and tourism sector, which is a very important part of my Brighton Kemptown constituency. We have already seen the closure of two iconic LGBTQ bars—the Charles Street Tap and the R-Bar on the seafront—and, frankly, I am worried that more face closure. Will the Minister reassure me about the action the Government are taking to support the sector? Would he also consider taking a trip to the seaside with the Secretary of State to meet local businesses and people in the local hospitality sector and to hear what more this Government can do?

[Jim McMahon]

This is definitely the benefit of a wider ministerial brief: I do not just get to go to bus councils; I also get invited to seaside towns, which is good news.

On the pressure issues, I do not think anybody underestimates just how difficult it is for those in hospitality and leisure at the moment—these are not good times—but surely the way to grow is to invest in that experience so that more people want to come to our towns, our cities and our seaside communities. We believe that growing that base and creating demand through collectively improving such experiences will create a more sustainable visitor experience.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Tourists visiting Torbay already pay double the rate of VAT compared with those visiting Italy, France or Spain. The reality is that a cost of living crisis is just the wrong time to implement a tourism tax. Can the Minister please share what investigations he has made of the impact of the tourism tax, but also assure us that Airbnb operators will also pay their fair share?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member raises two important points. On the first, the local impact assessment, this will be a devolved power, so it will be down to the mayoral or foundation authorities, as part of the consultation, to undertake an impact assessment at a local level, which will of course weigh up both the concerns and the benefits of this new levy. On the second point about levelling the playing field, which he makes very fairly, we could not have allowed a situation in which our guest houses and hotels are undercut by Airbnbs that are not included in the scheme. So this will apply right across the board, including to temporary or short-term lets, such as Airbnb and others.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the visitor levy and the investment it will bring to London’s visitor economy. Has the Minister been listening to London Councils, which wants 50% of the money raised in each borough to return to that borough, so that businesses know it is going back to the things that they want, such as cleaning Putney High Street?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just help Members who have been here a long time? Looking at the Minister is not how we do it; questions to the Minister must go through the Chair, because that is how we try to keep a balance. Some Members have only been here a few years, I know, but please try to make this work.

[Jim McMahon]

We have designed the policy to allow as much local flexibility as possible. That recognises that the approach in different places will require flexibility to take into account local circumstances. In practice, that means it will be for local areas, including London, to decide how they invest the money that comes through the system. However, our expectation is that there will be partnership and collaboration between local government and our regional mayors, where they exist, and with councils that are members of foundation authorities in other places.

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

If the hoteliers of Bournemouth are gagging to pay this tax, I can assure the Minister that those in hospitality in the New Forest are not. The Minister said that everybody will be a winner, but how can he possibly know when he cannot tell us how much the tax will be or where it will be levied?

[Jim McMahon]

Because here I am setting out the principle and the framework. Instinctively, the framework is that if we grow and invest in greater footfall, in a better visitor experience and in putting on events and activities that draw people in, accommodation operators benefit from increased footfall and overnight stays. If we stay as we are, some areas will really struggle to see the investment to enable growth to take place, so some places in the country may say they want to go further with the levy, and I think it is right that the Government, as part of our devolution ambitions, allow local places to make that call for their areas.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recognise the pressure that people in the hospitality sector in York are under, but they are very clear that the levies raised in York must stay in York—not move into wider North Yorkshire. Will the Minister ensure that the levy is hypothecated to the place where it is raised, so it can be invested in the tourism industry and ensure that wider services are there to support hospitality and tourism, as opposed to in other locations?

[Jim McMahon]

It will entirely depend on how local leaders decide to design the scheme, which will require conversations at a local level and, I would say, give and take. The only reflection I would make—this is a personal view, because another area may approach it very differently—is that when we think about the tourism economy in Greater Manchester, where I am from, everyone thinks about how successful the city centre of Manchester is or about the rolling hills of Saddleworth and our villages and how beautiful the Pennine belt is. A visitor will pass Oldham in going to those two areas, and I think we should ask what we are doing to invest in the whole, so the whole experience right across our region sees the benefits. Again, however, these are local decisions.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Great news, Mr Speaker: the Reform Mayors of Hull and East Yorkshire and of Greater Lincolnshire have confirmed that there will be no dreadful tourist tax in their respective areas. Therefore, holidaymakers should come to these great areas to save money. Given that many areas will refuse to impose this ludicrous tax, can the Minister guarantee that he and the Government will not be tempted to impose a tourist tax nationally?

[Jim McMahon]

In a way, the hon. Gentleman embraces devolution. It is for local leaders to make the call for their areas and to present their record to the public, and it works both ways. If mayors and foundation authorities want to introduce the levy, they will need to make the case for it, and the success of that will need to be presented to the public when they come to vote. That is direct accountability. Equally, if authorities decide not to introduce the levy but tourism stagnates and they are unable to improve the visitor experience, they will be accountable. It works both ways.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Oxford is a great place to visit, and I hope that many Members will enjoy coming to my great city. Many tourists agree with me, and £1 in every £6 spent in the city centre is spent by a visitor. However, many local residents and businesses, while they welcome tourism, do recognise that it causes additional costs. They have told me that they want to see a levy, which would improve the local environment for tourists and local people. Will the Minister move ahead and persuade Oxfordshire county council to back a mayoral strategic authority, so that we can get on with it?

[Jim McMahon]

Our devolution programme is ambitious, and we want to see devolution do two things: widen across the country—I welcome my right hon. Friend’s championing of a mayor for her region—and deepen, to make sure that when mayors are in place, they have the tools and levers to get the job done. We are absolutely up for having local conversations to progress devolution.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, 5 million people visit the beautiful East Yorkshire coastline every year, so any tourism tax would have a devastating effect on the local economy. The Minister says that he has developed a framework and that there is more work to do. Where there are larger mayoral areas—for example, my area of Hull and East Yorkshire—can he guarantee that any money raised in towns such as Bridlington or Hornsea will be spent there, rather than in a larger conurbation such as the city of Hull, and will he ensure that is the national framework for any mayor who wishes to introduce a tourist tax?

[Jim McMahon]

It sounds like there is no intention to introduce an overnight visitor levy in that area for the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] Well, who knows? There may well be a change of heart in the future.

In the spirit of devolution, I do not think it is right for a Government to impose terms and conditions in a way that prevents local authorities from doing what they instinctively believe is right for their area. But equally, they will have to present their plans through the consultation, they will have to do the impact assessment, and they will need to get local agreement. Surely the best democratic accountability framework is holding elections, and the thing about mayors is that they are directly elected and accountable to the voting public.

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

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. As a Cornish MP, I am incredibly proud that this Government were elected on a platform of devolution. That means trusting the decisions of local authorities to raise an overnight levy or not. I appreciate that the Opposition parties do not trust their local authorities, but no one is forcing local authorities to raise the levy. Does the Minister agree that fiscal devolution is an essential aspect of moving powers and funding out of this place and directly into the hands of local people?

[Jim McMahon]

I think those are really important points. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Cornwall and its economy, and he also recognises that the local partnerships that are developing are marshalling around devolution in quite an interesting way. Because of the representations that he and others have made, we have included foundation strategic authorities, so a mayor is not needed to introduce the levy. I think the wider growing-out of fiscal devolution is really exciting. We cannot have devolution if local authorities do not have the resources to get things done in their areas. Business rates retention, income tax retention and the overnight visitor levy are the first steps in that package of fiscal devolution that we have been waiting quite a long time for.

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

Stratford-upon-Avon is one of the country’s most important visitor destinations. It attracts millions of visitors each year, supporting local businesses, theatres, heritage attractions and jobs across my constituency. The all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, of which I am a member, heard evidence that a 5% visitor levy could reduce tourism spending and employment. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future levy is subject to meaningful consultation with the sector and local residents, and to the transparent ringfencing of revenues for investment in our local area?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. The APPG has spent time diligently going through the arguments for and against the levy, and examining what the benefits might be. Many local authorities see the levy as a big prize, because they will be able to invest back into the local economy. I would be pleased to receive any evidence that has been gathered through the APPG.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I welcome this step towards devolution, but York and North Yorkshire is a huge mayoral authority. In order for my constituents to feel the difference, we must ensure that money generated in Scarborough and Whitby is spent locally, not in the city of York. Will the Minister consider what he can do to ensure that locally generated revenue benefits the communities that produce it?

[Jim McMahon]

Mr Speaker, you know full well that it takes a brave Lancashire soul to interfere in Yorkshire politics, but surely it is in the spirit of devolution that it will be for local areas to decide. As I said, I spent the summer near Richmond, in north Yorkshire, and had a fantastic experience. Thinking about access to public transport and the wider visitor experience, there is no part of the country that would not benefit from more investment.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I think the Government’s plans for a tourist tax will be terrible for the visitor economy, terrible for jobs and terrible for spend on the high street. The Minister thinks it will be great. We can clear this up if the Minister will include in his visitor economy growth strategy a full analysis of his plans and publish it before he brings in his detrimental tourist tax.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting ahead of the review that he has just asked for and predetermining that the levy is somehow not a positive measure. Because this is a framework and is about devolved powers, clearly the impact assessment has to be done in areas where the levy has been introduced. Until we know where it has been introduced, we cannot do a national assessment of the impact.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The Edinburgh festival fringe in my constituency is a world-class tourist attraction—I know that the House understands this, because I bumped into about half of my fellow Members in August. Edinburgh is the third biggest ticketed event in the world after the FIFA world cup and the Olympics. This summer, Edinburgh became the first place in the UK to implement a city-wide visitor levy of 5%, which will raise £50 million to invest in the local economy, benefiting tourists and locals. Despite its implementation, we saw ticket sales increase by 8% this year. It is still a work in progress, but will the Minister meet me and officials from Edinburgh to understand our learning from the visitor levy? We are happy to invite any sceptics as well.

[Jim McMahon]

I would be pleased to do that. In a sense, what my hon. Friend says stands in stark contrast to what we have heard from the Opposition. In Manchester, where there is a voluntary scheme through the business improvement district, there is agreement that if we have money to invest in the visitor experience and in putting on events that draw in even greater footfall, everyone benefits in the end. I would be very happy to receive the evidence base that he talks about.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Those working in hospitality across Yeovil have told me that a tourism tax will impact jobs, growth and our high streets. We want to encourage tourism in our area, not decrease it. What steps is the Minister taking to strengthen support for rural hospitality, and will he meet me and representatives of the sector to talk about how we can boost tourism in rural Somerset? We need a commitment that local residents and businesses will be consulted before any decision is made.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman says that this measure will impact on jobs, growth and high streets. We believe it will do so in a positive way, because if we create more demand by increasing footfall through better investment and an improved visitor experience, that will create more jobs and more growth. If we have money to invest in our places, particularly our town centres and high streets, that will be better not just for visitors but for the people who live there. This policy cannot be seen in isolation; think about the millions of pounds that has been spent on Pride in Place and our future high streets fund, and there is more investment to come. We are reinvesting back into many parts of the country that have been neglected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway.

I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?

[Jim McMahon]

As Members will know from their summer holidays in America, Europe or almost anywhere else in the world, some form of local sales tax or visitor overnight accommodation levy is generally accepted as part and parcel of going away. The difference here, I suppose, is that we did not believe that a flat rate would be fair or proportionate, for the reasons I have set out. A visitor levy has to be in line with the overnight rate that people are paying, to ensure low-cost family accommodation remains as such.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the New Forest and the Waterside were forced into a unitary authority dominated by Southampton and Eastleigh, what chance would there be of local authorities looking after the interests of rural areas?

[Jim McMahon]

In the right hon. Gentleman’s case, this will be led by the mayoral strategic authority. It will be for that authority to do the consultations, carry out the impact assessment and, importantly, decide on the investment plan.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Southall Broadway attracts wedding shoppers from across the globe, so local businesses welcome the overnight visitor levy as a great opportunity to get investment in the town centre. However, unlike other mayoral areas, London is not a combined authority. What can the Minister do to ensure that is reflected in the design of the levy in London, so that the mayor and London boroughs can jointly shape how it operates, and places such as Southall do not lose out because they are in London?

[Jim McMahon]

We accept that the London devolution settlement is different from the settlement elsewhere in England, because of the relationship between the mayor with executive powers and the Greater London Authority as a directly elected body. However, there is an expectation that all partners—including local authorities, the GLA and the mayor—will work together in partnership on this and other measures.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Nine years ago, when I was the tourism Minister, I resisted the English holiday tax. What concerns me now for Salisbury—where people like Brian Currie are investing millions of pounds in the Cathedral hotel—is the impact that tax will have on domestic tourists. People in this country who cannot afford to go abroad will now be burdened with additional costs to have a few days away in England. Has the Minister understood the distribution of the burden of this tax and the impact it will have on people in this country?

[Jim McMahon]

The right hon. Member is making the case for the importance of the percentage rate approach. It is fair to say that large parts of our tourism economy provide a low-cost but good-quality family experience, and with a percentage rate those businesses will pay proportionately less than hotels in the capital, which is right and proper. It will also be a requirement that all areas carry out an impact assessment to understand the impact on their local economies and present where the investment will go afterwards.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Any devolution of powers, investment or fiscal policy down to Cornwall is welcome. That is why I am pleased our Government are progressing to give us the power to raise a visitor levy, whether or not Cornwall council chooses to utilise it. As the Minister might expect, however, from a Member who represents an area with a significant visitor economy, my expectation is that that money should be invested not only well but to support the common goods on which businesses in that sector and the communities they operate in rely. Can the Minister assure me that the manner in which the levy will be raised will be flexible, so that local leaders can use it in a way that is appropriate to the area and the money does not recycle back into Cornwall council’s pot?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that is the key. Some of the tensions in the Chamber are the result of parliamentarians wanting to know the full detail as it will apply across the country, but that is not devolution. Devolution means allowing local flexibility and allowing local leaders to make choices in the way that my hon. Friend has set out.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Several times, the Minister has referenced other European countries having a tourist tax, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) highlighted, those countries have much lower tax rates for hospitality overall. Will the Minister commit to reducing VAT on hospitality? Secondly, on the tourist tax, will he clarify whether the levy will be listed separately to the price of the room, so that those who use those facilities have clarity and transparency?

[Jim McMahon]

We are still working through the detail of the collection and reporting processes. Part of that consideration will be the presentation on bills, although let us not forget the 20% business rates support we are introducing for pubs and live music venues, which is the first step in supporting hospitality in the round.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Beaudesert outdoor activity centre in Cannock Wood, which welcomes 50,000 young people a year—including scouts, guides and school groups—and gives them memories to last a lifetime. It is a charity; it keeps charges low, and it worries about anything that could make its offer cost-prohibitive to cash-strapped groups. Given this Government’s commitment to expanding life chances and experiences for young people, will the Minister consider exempting groups of under-18s, to ensure that those valuable experiences do not become less affordable for them?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend raises a fair point, and one that I will take away.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am sure that many of my constituents considering a UK break will look to Cambridgeshire, where the always fiscally sound Conservative mayor Paul Bristow has made it clear that now is not the time for such a tax. However, hospitality businesses across the rest of the country will be frightened by this measure—we already have two pubs closing a day, and businesses are struggling to get by under this Government’s tax burden. How low does tourism in this country have to dip, or how many businesses have to go bust, before the Treasury tells this Minister that this tourist levy must go?

[Jim McMahon]

In the spirit of devolution, if a mayor believes that not introducing a visitor levy is the right decision for their area, the Government will support that. To be clear, though, the last Conservative Government was not a good period for our pubs and hospitality businesses—pubs in our communities, town centres and city centres closed at a rate of knots. We are trying to say that that decline is not inevitable, and that Government working in partnership with our regions and councils can begin to turn that around.

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

Every year, millions of people travel through Hillingdon, to visit the country or the city of London or go to Heathrow, and stay at hotels near the airport. That creates real costs for local communities—policing, street cleaning and transport impacts—and addressing those threats to the tourist economy requires funding. As such, I support this measure, but can the Minister assure me that those issues that are often locally driven and funded will also get support in a mayoral-led system?

[Jim McMahon]

It will be for local areas to determine how they frame both the levy and the investment. In the case of London, the mayor will be working with the GLA. There is an expectation that councils will be collaborated with and that there will be some agreement on how that might work in practice, but as I say, it is for local areas to work through that detail.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

We now have a Minister for euphemism. Let us be clear: this is not a visitor levy, but a tax on tourism. It is a tax on the staycation, a tax on hospitality, a tax on the family holiday, a tax on hospitality jobs, a tax on mobility, and—the worst sin of all—a tax on Shropshire. Shropshire tourism rejects this tax whenever it might come, directly or indirectly. Is this not another example of this Government being addicted to raising taxes?

[Jim McMahon]

The only things we are determined to do are to ensure that devolution means something—that local leaders must be given the tools they need to do the job at a local level—and not to accept that the decline of our towns, cities and rural communities is inevitable after our experience under the previous Government. We think there is a different way.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Many people visit Derbyshire because it has beautiful scenery and a fascinating history, but those visitors do place a strain on our infrastructure, which is why I think it is reasonable that we explore whether we continue to ask local people to foot the bill for that. However, I recently visited Drum Hill scout camp in my constituency, which welcomes many thousands of young people from quite far afield to learn fantastic life skills, and I have also engaged with organisations that provide respite holidays for disabled people. I know that local leaders can decide how to implement the legislation locally, but can we put an exception for those kinds of groups on the face of the Bill?

[Jim McMahon]

As I said in response to a similar question, my hon. Friend makes a fair point about that type of accommodation, and I reflect on the work of Claire Ward as the Mayor of the East Midlands. There is a lot of focus now on creating good jobs, and for that to be in a spirit of devolution, with mayors wanting more control of what happens in their areas. This measure, alongside business rate retention and income tax retention, is beginning to address that balance.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In Cambridgeshire, the Conservative Mayor Paul Bristow, decided not to implement this tourism tax. That is incredibly important, because we have recently adopted the local visitor economy partnership as we seek to make gains from the creation of Universal Studios just down the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is looking to bring in an LVEP in Bedfordshire, too. Why does the Minister think that a tax like this would benefit somewhere like Cambridge, when we clearly do not think that it will? What else is he doing to support communities such as mine in Huntingdon, where we are looking to build a visitor economy to take advantage of the opportunities that Universal Studios can bring?

[Jim McMahon]

This Government have given support to Universal Studios, because of the economic benefit that will bring. It will also be a nice thing for visitors from across the country to be able to go there and enjoy that. It will have a wider impact on the local economy that will benefit hospitality, leisure and accommodation providers. In response to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about place-based investment, this Government have an ambition to ensure that every town centre and every high street realises its full potential. That needs investment, too, and he will see that not just in his place, but right across the country.

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

As the proud Member of Parliament for Heywood and Middleton North in Greater Manchester, I, too, want to see the prosperity of the centre flow out into towns like mine, which are just as deserving of economic development and cultural regeneration. Does the Minister agree that extending further revenue-raising powers to our mayors will accelerate the regeneration that we need to see in our constituencies, just as much as in the city centre?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her place, and she also recognises that within our city regions, as much as everywhere else, every community has a role to play. She will know the work done by the fantastic Middleton Arena. With more investment and more footfall, all our places—whether Middleton, Oldham or Greater Manchester more widely—can do even more.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I have sat through several evidence sessions on this visitor levy, and I have yet to hear any operator in the sector say that they support it, so I do not understand to whom the Minister has been talking. A caravan park operator said that if numbers go down in the off-season, they will only be able to be open in the high season, which has a knock-on effect on jobs, the local pub and the local café. It has a ripple effect across the local economy. The Minister talks about growth, and we need growth in the sector, because young people primarily are employed in hospitality. Such jobs are vital for young people. Can he tell me in what world he sees the tourism and hospitality industry growing under this visitor levy?

[Jim McMahon]

For the reasons I have stated many times before, if we invest in and grow our tourism and hospitality economy, that will generate more footfall, people will enjoy their stay more, and that will create more jobs, including for young people.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Whether it is parents requiring a hotel stay while their four-month-old daughter has neurosurgery, or a new mother requiring a hotel stay to recover from a pulmonary embolism, in both those cases a tax would be incurred for a stay they wish they did not have to do. Those are not hypothetical examples; I was both. Will the Minister please mandate from the Dispatch Box that anyone seeking medical treatment for themselves or their children—sometimes that can be months at a time at Great Ormond Street—will not have such a tax imposed on them and their families?

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly commit to look into it and to respond to the hon. Member in writing.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Businesses in Devon have told me of their concern about this proposed visitor levy, including Littlecourt Cottages in Sidmouth. They point out that the tourist footfall might decrease, not just for the cottages, but for the restaurants, the attractions and the shops in the local area. This tax has been dreamed up on the basis of what it will do for cities that see a higher proportion of wealthy overseas visitors, has it not?

[Jim McMahon]

Of course it has not. First, devolution will be rolled out across the whole country, and significant rural areas are already covered by mayoral strategic authorities. That roll-out will include foundation strategic authorities, which covers places such as Cornwall. As part of the next stage of devolution, we are seeing a grow-out across the south of England and the east of England that will see more coverage. Fundamentally, it is for local leaders and local mayors to get together and work out what is right for their area.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

At the weekend, I had the pleasure of joining Cleveland scouts and seeing at first hand the fantastic work that scouting does to give young people confidence, practical skills, friendships and opportunities they might not otherwise have. Can the Minister reassure those young people and their families that this Government are not seriously proposing to tax a scout for pitching a tent? Can he confirm that scout camps and other charitable youth residentials will be exempt from his holiday tax?

[Jim McMahon]

That question is in line with a number of other questions that have been asked about youth experience accommodation. I have committed to go away and look at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Many of my constituents in Strangford and people across Northern Ireland travel to the United Kingdom for a home-based holiday. The weather is almost as good as it is in the Mediterranean. They pay for their flights or they take their vehicles on the ferry, already paying a high fee to support tourism in the United Kingdom. Why should my constituents—British constituents—be penalised twice for supporting and buying into a British holiday? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those in Northern Ireland are not discouraged from contributing to having a home-based holiday in England?

[Jim McMahon]

Everybody will pay the levy, and they will benefit from the improved experience, not only in the immediate area, but in the types of events and activities that might draw in people. Where local leaders decide that the levy is right for their places, we believe that people will enjoy the wider benefits.

Exceptional Financial Support: Transformation Funding

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Written Statements

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

After a decade and a half of austerity, over-centralisation and rising demand for targeted services, we have inherited a system in which too many councils have been left struggling to manage financial pressures.

Over the past two years, the Government have taken steps to fix the foundations for a more sustainable funding system for local government in England. In February, the Government delivered the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, with a fairer and simpler approach to allocating funding for day-to-day services. This was alongside major reforms to high-cost services, including children’s services, homelessness and rough sleeping, and action to resolve special educational needs and disabilities deficits by writing off 90% of councils’ dedicated schools grant high needs deficits accrued to the end of 2025-26.

This has been part of a wider commitment to support councils differently and work in partnership to deal with the causes that are contributing to system strain, rather than short-term measures that focus only on the symptoms.

Following requests from 37 areas, in February the Government agreed to provide exceptional financial support of £1.5 billion to enable all of them to set a balanced budget—while being clear that we would continue to work with them to provide the support and challenge necessary to break the damaging cycle of councils having to borrow or sell assets to manage financial pressures.

Today I am updating the House on a further step that we are taking, by providing £91 million of targeted funding that will support some of those councils in the most challenging financial positions to invest in prevention and modern, effective services that will underpin long-term sustainability.

As the Government set out when confirming exceptional financial support, the most important first step has been to fix the underlying drivers of financial failure by delivering a fairer local government settlement that puts funding where it is needed most. Most councils in receipt of exceptional financial support see significant increases in core spending power over this Parliament, which demonstrates that we are getting money to where it is needed most.

However, we know that the challenges facing councils are complex, and there is no single solution. The Government are working to support and challenge councils in a range of ways, tailored to their circumstances.

In a small number of councils where there is clear evidence that councils’ challenges are rooted in or exacerbated by weak financial management or governance arrangements, the Government are taking the appropriate action under the best value framework. Depending on the severity of issues, this can mean commissioning an inspection, appointing commissioners or envoys, or issuing a best value notice to set clear expectations for local improvement where a council is at clear risk of not meeting their best value duty. In July this year, my Department confirmed that new or renewed best value notices would be issued to four of the councils that received EFS in February, and, reflecting more significant concerns, we commissioned a best value inspection in Bedford borough council, which we expect to report in due course.

Aside from those already subject to statutory intervention, for each of the councils that received exceptional financial support, MHCLG has also commissioned the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to work with each of the councils to identify the steps needed to support its financial recovery. This support is funded by MHCLG, and the first set of 15 reviews have now been published on gov.uk—providing councils with a clear diagnosis and road map for improvement. To support that improvement, in a number of places the Department and the Local Government Association are also working with councils to provide targeted support, for example to improve capacity.

We have also today written to 14 of the councils to confirm some additional funding to accelerate their plans for service reform and transformation. These councils are: Bradford, Brighton and Hove, Haringey, Havering, Isle of Wight, Isles of Scilly, Lambeth, Redbridge, Redcar and Cleveland, Sefton, Stoke-on-Trent, Trafford, Waltham Forest and West Berkshire.

My officials have worked with those councils as they have developed robust plans for showing how targeted additional investment could transform high-cost services and put the council on a more sustainable long-term footing. The councils will be supported to implement their plans with a share of £91 million in further support across 2026-27 and 2027-28.

This investment marks a turning point in how the Government intend to support councils to manage their financial position, with greater emphasis on long-term prevention rather than short-term fixes.

Through this approach, the Government aim to demonstrate that with co-ordinated, purposeful investment and effective support and expertise across Government, councils can move towards more sustainable models of service delivery over the long term. Stoke-on-Trent, for example, will use this funding to accelerate the roll-out of the Families First Partnership programme locally. These reforms will help children get the best start in life, break down barriers to opportunity, and reduce the long-term pressure on local authority budgets.

Changing the way we work with councils in financial difficulty is a key part of our mission to rewire the state and raise living standards. We will draw lessons from these projects and encourage councils to share their learning widely.

This written ministerial statement applies to England only.

[HCWS347]

Fiscal Devolution in England

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Written Statements

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

England is an international outlier in the extent to which decisions are taken centrally, and at the same time has experienced some of the highest levels of regional inequality in the developed world. We believe the two are linked. Too many decisions have been made in Whitehall, far away from the reality of life across the country, and disconnected from the impact of those decisions. These have often not reflected the needs of places and communities across the country.

To change this, the Government have embarked on an ambitious agenda of devolving powers to local leaders with a new assumption of devolution by default. The Government devolution agenda will shift power closer to local communities, with decisions taken by democratically elected mayors and local leaders who understand their areas best.

The landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 introduced reforms to give local leaders clearer powers, greater responsibility and stronger accountability so that decisions affecting places can be taken closer to the communities they affect. These reforms support the Government's wider rewiring the state programme, which seeks to shift power, funding and accountability away from Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders. The Act’s aim is to reverse the centralisation of decision-making which has held our country back for too long and to boost economic growth, strengthen public services, and restore public trust in politics.

For mayors and other local leaders to take greater responsibility for driving growth and improving life in their areas, they must also have greater control over local investment. Giving mayors and other local leaders greater power over tax revenue is a vital step in helping them drive investment and good growth in their areas.

That is why today, MHCLG and HMT have published the Government response to the overnight visitor levy in England consultation. The consultation closed earlier this year, and since then we have continued to engage with mayors, local leaders and stakeholders from the visitor economy to strike the balance between a simple deliverable levy for industry and one which empowers mayors and local leaders to raise revenue for investment in their area.

England is home to some of the world's most iconic visitor destinations, from its vibrant cities, breathtaking countryside and national parks, to historic seaside towns along its spectacular coastline. The visitor economy supports millions of jobs, enriches communities, and enhances the quality of life for millions of people. Yet there are few local levers available to help destinations invest in and sustain this vital industry.

A visitor levy will enable mayors and other local leaders in England to choose to use a proportionate contribution from visitors to the region to reinvest in the local area. It is a major step in giving local leaders greater control over the decisions and funding that affect their areas, putting new powers over locally raised revenue into their hands for the first time in decades. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Local leaders know their local history, local culture, the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in, and what challenges local areas face. Along with our plans to devolve a portion of income tax and enable mayors to retain some of the business rates generated in their areas, the visitor levy represents our commitment to creating a more accountable state, responsible to local people. This is about giving places the tools they need to drive good growth, in every part of the country.

Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them in line with Scotland and Wales, as well as local authorities across France and international cities like New York and Amsterdam. We want to provide mayors and other local leaders with a fiscal tool that they can choose to use. We understand that a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be right for every place, and so the choice of whether to introduce it will be for mayors and other local leaders to take. That ultimately is at the heart of this devolution programme.

To develop the details of the visitor levy we have engaged extensively with the public, accommodation providers, charities and local leaders. In our consultation we tested views on the levy supporting local economic growth, including through strengthening the visitor economy. Our decisions reflect this wide-ranging engagement.

The visitor levy will be set as a percentage of the accommodation cost, ensuring that charges are proportionate to the price of the stay. A percentage rate model helps ensure that the levy is affordable and will mean a stay at a budget friendly hotel or guest house would attract a lower visitor levy than a luxury five-star hotel in London.

All mayoral strategic authorities and foundation strategic authorities will have overnight visitor levy powers. This recognises their role in driving local growth and ensures this fiscal power is available across England, to be used for unlocking stalled investment, improving infrastructure and delivering good growth across the country. The levy will enable mayors and other local leaders to invest revenues in support of the visitor economy, experience and important local priorities.

It will be for mayors and other local leaders to decide if the visitor levy is the right decision for their areas, following a consultation. The Government will provide non-statutory guidance to support those leaders who are considering introducing a visitor levy. Mayors will be able to set out their spending plans by March 2028.

[HCWS330]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to support high streets in Putney.

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

To help restore high streets across the country, we have announced measures to tackle organised crime, cut business rates for pubs and stop the spread of vape shops and gambling outlets. Later this year, we will publish a high streets strategy setting out a longer-term plan for bringing life back into our town centres.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome all those on the Front Bench to their places, and I welcome back the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for meeting me to talk about Putney high street. We love our high street in Putney; we want to see it thrive even more, and especially to open up empty shops. Will the Minister give hope to every high street by reviewing and reducing business rates, and by making the high street rental auction zone policy work more effectively by cutting unnecessary red tape and providing councils with the financial support they need to bring vacant properties up to a lettable standard?

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing Putney and her high street, and for attending the roundtable. Councils need both the tools and the support to bring vacant properties back into use, which is why we introduced high street rental actions. To make powers as straightforward as possible, we have published guidance and templates and established a dedicated support mechanism for local authorities. We are reviewing new burdens funding to ensure councils are appropriately resourced, and have announced £10 million to tackle long-term vacancies and bring empty units back into productive use. On business rates, this Government are committed to reforming the system to create a fairer approach that fully supports investments and high streets such as my hon. Friend’s.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What support her Department is providing to councils to help them use their housing revenue account to build council houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?

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

The hon. Member highlights an issue affecting many town centres and high streets, which is that, for far too long, organised criminal gangs have been acting in plain sight and getting away with it, but now they have a Government who are ready to take them on.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

T5. The inspection by the BBA—the British Board of Agrément—at Goodrich Mews in Dudley confirmed that the retaining wall installed by the Keller Phi Group will not have met the criteria that must be met if it is to have the stated service life, and it needs emergency repair. The Keller Phi Group has absolved itself of any responsibility, leaving residents with a dangerously collapsing wall. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can hold such companies to account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Empty shops that are rundown because of absentee landlords are a blight on our town centres, but Labour-run Erewash borough council is fixing the problem through clean-up orders, such as the one served to the Burton building in Long Eaton—as soon as it was renovated, new businesses moved right in—but clean-up orders can be very time-consuming, so what more can the Government do to tackle absentee landlords and bring shops back into use?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work championing his high street. The Government have allocated £24.8 million to the Long Eaton town deal, which is funding high street redevelopment projects such as public realm improvements. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Last week, at the successful Reform conference, I launched a series of bold planning proposals that will make it easier to regenerate our town centres and easier to build on brownfield sites, by making it cheaper and faster to get planning consents. Will the Secretary of State consider those proposals? They have been well-received by the industry. I urge her to consult and to meet me.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I welcome the £14 million of funding released this month to create opportunities for young people in my constituency. The money will train them in jobs for construction in net zero sectors. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach that the Government have taken to empowering and funding local stakeholders to grow local economies should be adopted by the SNP Scottish Government?

[Jim McMahon]

Since summer ’25, the Department has been working in partnership with the offices and partners in each nation to deliver the local growth fund in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring that funding is spent on projects that really matter to local people. It is really important that every arm of Government, regardless of where it is in the UK, drives down on that investment so that local people feel empowered in the places where they live.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council’s debt—[Interruption.] Listen. The debt now sits at £620.1 million, up from £585 million last year, and £36,000 a day is paid in interest. The previous Government issued a best value notice to ensure that the debt was reduced, but this Government scrapped it. Why are the Government so unwilling to take the Liberal Democrat council to task for ripping off my constituents?

[Jim McMahon]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we do not shy away from intervention when it is required. We also think that the Government ought to work in partnership with local government and that councils, where they need support, find a partner in central Government. He can be absolutely sure that, when it comes to value for taxpayers’ money and holding the sector to account, the right checks and balances are finally in place.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s plans to deepen devolution, but can the Minister reassure me that they will mean no alteration to the commitment to a Cambridge development corporation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister meet me and the leader of City of York council? The fair funding formula is not working for our city because it does not use the lower-tier data with regard to the indices of deprivation, meaning that we are the worst-funded local authority. Can we have that meeting?

[Jim McMahon]

I am very happy to do so.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Despite swift action from Dacorum council to tackle a 6-acre unauthorised development in the Chilterns landscape, it had to choose between occupation and restoration, as tackling both would potentially have dragged the case out for years. What are the Government doing to help councils with powers to ensure that these cases can be tackled sooner?

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that.

I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.

[Perran Moon]

On that specific point, part of the reason why there is a conflation of devolution and the local government funding settlement is that, because our local councils in some areas are so deprived of funding, they have to get funding from something like a visitor levy, which would not typically be allocated for that, in order to supplement the services they need to provide. That is potentially why there is a mix-up of views about devolution and the local government settlement. Does the Minister recognise that point?

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to.

Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another.

The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates.

As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents.

For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that.

I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

[Jim McMahon]

We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data.

We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services.

The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan.

We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school.

We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need.

The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised.

Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week.

We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress made so far and the opportunities presented by this once-in-a-generation reform.

Before I get to the main points, let me say that it is clear from the contributions of the hon. Member for Huntingdon and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) that they are passionate about local communities—that is what makes our Parliament great—but that there are sometimes quite different views about how to achieve what they want. Life would be wonderful for central Government if at a local level there was a single answer to the question and our job was merely to say, “Thank you very much for the submission. Everyone agrees on that, and it makes complete sense.” Of course, that is not the position that the Government find ourselves in. We have to arbitrate over many competing views. We receive the proposals without predetermination, on the basis on which they were submitted, and we have to act in good faith. I assure the hon. Member for Huntingdon and others that, as a Minister, I will do that with diligence and in good faith.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s exact points later, but let me say that it is not helpful to make accusations in this place or on social media that seem to cast aspersions on the process. I know how passionate people are about their places, their identity and the future of their local authorities, but it is important that we set the record straight. I will attempt to do that and to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating all Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils on the collaborative way in which they have worked together on this process? Despite coming up with different options that they may or may not back, they have remained in a position where they have been taking to each other throughout. Those dialogues have been ongoing and I think that is something to be commended.

[Jim McMahon]

We have seen that across England in the two-tier areas. In many cases, people have come together across party lines because it is far better to agree a comprehensive proposal locally and submit it to Government than to have it done to them in another way. If there is more local organisation and agreement at that level, it is far better for local people and for the decision made later in the process.

Even where there is difference in nuance—there will be differences in some elements—the core fact remains that the two-tier system just is not working. For too long, too many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate costs and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which services; decisions to build homes or grow our towns and cities take longer than they ought to; and resources can be spread too thinly.

The Government’s aim is simple: to have clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. As the Prime Minister said, ending the two-tier system of local government

“is a nettle…that’s got to be grasped.”

If we want to devolve more powers out of Westminster, we need a structure for local government in England that is equal across the board. Reorganisations are the building blocks for devolution, and I am really pleased with the progress made so far. Decisions have been taken in 19 of the 21 areas, and we are now working with councils to get on with the job of implementation.

I turn to the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. I understand his wish for further clarity about the previous Secretary of State’s decision and the next steps for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. On the decision itself, the former Secretary of State decided that more time was needed to consider which option, if any, to implement in that area. The decision was not taken lightly, and I say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon now that we will consider decisions on local government reorganisation closely. They represent a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come, so it is important that we make the right decisions in the right way.

We will aim to make decisions on which option, if any, to implement on or before October this year. That will still allow for elections to new councils in May 2027 before they go live in April 2028. I am grateful to the hon. Member, and to other MPs and councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for their efforts to date. I assure him and them that we remain absolutely committed to delivering reorganisation across the area, and we will provide further updates shortly.

On reorganisation more broadly, we recognise that it is a demanding process, and we would not have made the progress we have without the hard work and dedication of local councils and officials. The Government have announced that £63 million will be made available to support the transition across the 21 reorganised areas. As well as the unprecedented £900,000-worth of transition support to each new unitary, areas will receive up to a further £150,000 per each new unitary council to support leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health. That will bring the total transition funding for LGR areas to more than £1 million per new unitary created. In addition, up to £1 million of funding in total will be available to support the small number of areas with complex fire and rescue authority transitions, building on the funding already given to Surrey.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Should the Government choose an option that sees the Huntingdonshire area split in two between two unitary authorities, what additional support will be given to fully disaggregate the district council’s responsibilities, given the complexity involved? Could the Minister also offer any clarity on local services? For example, the boundary would go in between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are separated only by a small bridge—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Jim McMahon]

I am keen not to predetermine what decision we may or may not take. It may well be that a decision leads to disaggregation, but equally it may not, and until we get to the point of reviewing the proposals put forward, we are not in that position. However, as a matter of principle, I accept that having a new unitary authority made up of districts in their entirety, where assets, liabilities and workforces are transferred en bloc, is different from having to disaggregate because it is being split in a number of different directions. I will certainly take that away for consideration; it is a fair point.

Hopefully the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that this is a comprehensive financial support package, which is about supporting local authorities. We should not lose sight of the fact that reorganisation is a real opportunity not just for more efficient services and a clear line of sight on responsibility, but for devolution and our communities. It is an opportunity to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to drive growth, to build the homes their communities need, to deliver better public services and to improve the lives of the people we serve.

I hope that, whatever differences of opinion there are, there is the same collaboration at a parliamentary level as I have seen at a local level. I see that local authorities, councillors and officials are working hard and recognising the direction that the Government have set, with many realising the advantages that will come with a unitary authority with a single mandate for their area. Importantly—and hopefully all Members have heard this—the new Prime Minister is coming from being mayor of a major city region, hungry for more devolution and recognising that this country, for far too long, has held power, resources and decision making in this place when it should be out across the country instead.

Question put and agreed to.

Restoring Pride in High Streets

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Written Statements

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

The condition of high streets, and the health of district, town and city centres, is a litmus test for national renewal. High streets bring people together to eat and drink, shop, access services, explore culture and heritage, or spend time with friends and family. They root a community and when thriving offer pride and quality of life for local people. The high street has a vital role anchoring communities in shared experience and physical togetherness, as well as supporting jobs and local economic growth.

For too long, though, communities have watched their high streets decline around them, with boarded-up shops, vape shops, and rogue businesses replacing the local services people rely on, and gambling businesses disproportionately found in the most deprived areas. This makes high streets unattractive to visit and undesirable to invest in, fuelling a spiral of decline.

This decline is not inevitable, nor is fixing these problems outside our control. Better living standards, mixed-use adaptation, raising the bar on quality, and businesses having breathing space are fundamental to reviving high streets. But giving local people a say over the composition and care of their high street, and clamping down on exploitation, can make a vital contribution now and in the future.

This Government are determined to restore pride in our high streets, support legitimate businesses, and give local people a stronger say over what happens in their town centres. That is why we have announced a package of measures to put power back in the hands of local communities, so that they can shape the future of their own high streets.

First, the Government intend to consult on changes to the planning system to account specifically for the rise in vape shops and adult gaming centres, and provide more control at a local level over the number of these opening on our high streets. At present, vape shops sit within the same broad planning use class as shops, cafés and financial services (class E). Changes of use within this use class do not require a planning application. Adult gaming centres are also not clearly defined in the use classes order. This can leave local communities feeling powerless when new premises open in inappropriate locations, including near schools, or where there is already a concentration of similar premises.

Subject to consultation, the Government intend to make vape shops and adult gaming centres standalone planning categories, or what is known as sui generis uses, in planning terms. This would mean a planning application would be required when the use of the land or building changed to that of either a vape shop or an adult gaming centre, where the change amounts to a material change of use. This would give local planning authorities and communities a proper opportunity to consider whether they are appropriate in that location. The consultation will also test how a vape shop should be defined to ensure a wide definition that does not incentivise businesses to try to avoid the rules by presenting themselves as convenience stores, and captures various uses of shops, where the main aim is to sell vaping products.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will also consult on removing the aim to permit rule in the Gambling Act 2005. This rule currently requires licensing authorities to approach gambling premises applications on the basis that they should generally be permitted where the relevant requirements are met. The Government recognise that regulated, responsible gambling businesses make an economic contribution and offer spaces for people to socialise and have fun. However, many councils, MPs and residents have raised concerns about the clustering of gambling premises, particularly adult gaming centres, on high streets, especially in areas already facing economic and social challenges, and too often local authorities seeking to prevent new openings have found their decisions overturned after a costly legal challenge.

Removing the aim to permit rule will build upon the introduction of gambling impact assessments earlier this year, empowering councils to take local concerns into account when considering applications for new gambling premises. This is not about a blanket ban. It is about giving communities and their locally elected representatives a fairer say over whether additional gambling premises are right for their area.

The Government will also take action to strengthen enforcement against rogue businesses linked to organised crime or serious nuisance. Following a targeted consultation earlier this year, we intend to double the maximum length of closure orders from six months to 12 months. This will give police and local authorities more time to investigate premises, pursue prosecutions, and prevent criminal operators from reopening before investigations are complete. Tackling high-street dodgy shops remains a priority for the Government, and this effort is underpinned by £30 million over three years. The new cross-departmental high street organised crime unit in the Home Office is working at pace with national and local partners to ensure a more robust, co-ordinated response to the problem.

Finally, we will work with councils to improve the appearance and design of high streets. Poor-quality shopfronts, oversized signage and unsympathetic alterations can undermine the character and attractiveness of town centres. Over the next six months, the Planning Advisory Service will identify good practice and provide practical support to councils on improving shopfronts, signs and the overall look and feel of local high streets.

These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to restore high streets and shift power out of Westminster and back into the hands of local communities. We will set out further detail on our long-term comprehensive approach through the high streets strategy later this year.

[HCWS302]