Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales: Scheme Improvements

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I am today launching a consultation on proposed improvements to the Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales.

With 6.7 million members and £400 billion of assets under management, this Government see the vital importance of our role as steward of the Local Government Pension Scheme. We know the impact that changes to the scheme have, not only on individual members but on the country as a whole. Investing in the members that make up the scheme—those who collect waste, serve school lunches, manage libraries, and tend to parks and green spaces—rightly rewards the hard work that they put in to making our communities thrive.

As a first step, in May 2025 we launched a consultation on enhancing member benefits, with a focus on:

Equalising the entitlement to survivor benefits of all eligible survivors of Local Government Pension Scheme members, remedying historical discrimination in the scheme;

taking concrete steps to addressing the gender pension gap;

mandating reporting on opting out from the scheme; and

closing loopholes on current pension forfeiture rules.

This work sat alongside important reforms to investment and pooling, which unlock the investment might of the scheme, due to reach £1 trillion by 2030. These reforms will harness the potential of the scheme as a catalyst of growth while ensuring that it delivers on its primary duty to provide a retirement income for members.

Building on these, the consultation we are launching today covers four areas:

We are proposing to update the normal minimum pension age in the LGPS age to 57, following the Finance Act 2022, and confirm that we will protect members who had scheme membership before 4 November 2021. This gives clarity to millions of members who want to know when they can retire.

We are proposing to recognise the geographical spread of our schools across multi-academy trusts, and simplify the process of applying for a direction to bring together staff into a single Local Government Pension Scheme fund. We are also proposing that the criteria applications are assessed against is put into legislation to provide transparency to employers.

We are proposing to implement long-awaited Fair Deal protections for workers outsourced from local government, ensuring that they have seamless and continued access to the Local Government Pension Scheme. This will in part be achieved by removing the use of “broadly comparable” schemes, which see workers receiving downgraded pensions when they are outsourced.

Finally, we are proposing to restore access to the scheme for councillors in England and extend it to mayors, bringing England into alignment with the schemes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. As reorganisation and devolution continue to reshape local government, the responsibilities placed on mayors and councillors are expanding significantly, and access to the pension scheme is key to encouraging talented individuals into those roles.

For 14 years, the Conservatives decimated local government, and working people paid the price. The last Government’s “Westminster knows best” attitude saw power centralised in Whitehall, with local budgets cut to the bone. Communities lost their sense of pride and control. Neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition and local champions were locked out of Government. This Government are putting power back in the hands of communities and their local champions. We are rebuilding and streamlining local government so that working people can once again rely on the regular, high-quality local services they deserve.

Efficient and reliable local services are built on a foundation of hard-working, professional and talented local councillors. While the Tories saw councillors as a volunteer, part-time role, Labour will treat councillors with the respect they deserve as dedicated public servants, handing them the rights at work that they deserve. The result will be a streamlined, efficient and more effective local government, with fewer more empowered local councillors. These councillors will be given the proper terms and conditions they deserve—the certainty of financial stability in older age should be a minimum.

I am grateful to the Local Government Association, the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board, the Government Actuary’s Department, and many others for their support.

The next phase in this continued effort to improve the scheme will include the publication, later this year, of the full Government response to the May 2025 consultation.

[HCWS952]

Homelessness and Rough Sleeping: Additional Funding 2025-26

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has allocated £84 million in additional funding across four homelessness and rough sleeping grants for 2025-26:

£69.9 million uplift to the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, bringing the total funding for this grant to £255.5 million. Up to £12.8 million of this funding uplift is being awarded to councils specifically to deliver and add value to partnerships and services with voluntary, community and faith sector organisations. This additional funding has been made available to 62 local authorities experiencing the greatest rough sleeping pressures, alongside 12 strategic authorities and five London sub-regions. The funding will support a range of services, including for those experiencing long-term rough sleeping, and will enable strategic authorities to put greater emphasis on integrated efforts to end rough sleeping across their regions. It will also support interventions to prevent rough sleeping for those transitioning from the asylum estate.

£10.9 million on supporting children experiencing homelessness. This will be delivered as an uplift to the homelessness prevention grant, bringing total funding for this grant to £644.14 million. This funding has been awarded to 61 local authorities with the highest numbers of children in temporary accommodation, to increase access to support and services for families and make a tangible impact on their quality of life while they remain in need. This will deliver positive benefits for education and health outcomes by funding interventions such as school travel, uniform and equipment, and the provision of specialist support roles.

£3 million uplift for the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme, bringing the total funding for this grant to £61.7 million. We are allocating additional funding to the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment component of the drug and alcohol treatment and recovery improvement grant, known as DATRIG, to provide evidence-based drug and alcohol treatment and wraparound support for people sleeping rough or at risk of sleeping rough, including those with co-occurring mental health needs. This will allow continued service delivery in 83 local authorities.

£200,000 uplift for the voluntary, community and frontline sector grant, bringing total funding for this grant to £3.7 million. This additional funding will support work to develop innovative initiatives within the faith and non-commissioned sector to support those in need.

The Government are committed to getting us back on track to ending homelessness. The additional funding allocated across these grants will enable councils, strategic authorities and the wider sector to support those who are most vulnerable in society, and, ultimately, will help to save lives.

[HCWS950]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

20. What recent progress the inter-ministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping has made on the development of a cross-Government strategy to end homelessness.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

The Government inherited a homelessness crisis; there were record numbers of people in temporary accommodation, and rough sleeping had doubled. That is why my predecessor got together the inter-ministerial group on homelessness very quickly. It has met four times, and has established the principles of the strategy, having sought full input from across Government. That strategy is on its way, but just last week, the Government announced a further £84 million in this financial year to support people who are sleeping rough or who are homeless.

[Mary Glindon]

The Minister’s announcement is welcome, but last year, in England and Wales, 18% of the people who were found to be at risk of homelessness or were experiencing homelessness were aged just 16 to 24. That number is far too high. Will the Minister agree to meet the YMCA and the Youth Homeless Chapter Collective to discuss the action needed to support young people and reduce homelessness for good?

[Alison McGovern]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on sharing those figures with the House, because even though it is quite hard to hear them, it is important that we do not look away from this crisis. I will of course meet her and the charities she mentions.

[Emily Darlington]

As the Minister may know, Milton Keynes used to be called “tent city”. We reduced the number of rough sleepers down to 16 when I was deputy leader at the council. We were able to do that because we understood that rough sleeping was more than just a housing issue; it was a whole-person issue. Is she willing to meet me and the other officers of the all-party parliamentary group on rough sleeping, as well as Back-Bench Members who have experience in this area, while shaping and delivering the rough sleeping strategy?

[Alison McGovern]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s work, and the work of Milton Keynes council and others in the city, to bring down the number of rough sleepers. We will take that whole-person approach in the homelessness strategy. I never knowingly avoid a meeting with an APPG, so I am sure that we will get that arranged shortly.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Reducing youth homelessness relies on having an effective, working housing market. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) understands that, and that is why she has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. She has also said that she is happy for the idea to be stolen and adopted by other parties. It would reduce the cost of house buying in Beverley and Holderness by around £3,800—a real boost for young families trying to get on the housing ladder. Will the Minister say to the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor, “Adopt this policy, and do it now”?

[Alison McGovern]

The party of Liz Truss just doesn’t learn, does it? The Conservatives are happy to make tax policy that is absolute fantasy. People need real homes to live in, not this kind of thing, and the Conservatives simply will not get a hearing until they look at their record and learn to say sorry.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their positions. I very much look forward to welcoming them to meetings of the Select Committee; we are a fair and robust Committee. The Minister highlighted the inter-ministerial group, which the former Secretary of State chaired and saw as being very important. The issue cuts across all departmental groups. It is important, because within two months, as we go into the next year, and in the next financial year, we will see over 170,000 young children in temporary accommodation —in homelessness. That should worry all of us. The inter-ministerial group has met four times. Can the Minister confirm that the group will continue to be convened—and if it will, who will chair it?

[Alison McGovern]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes the case extremely well. If anybody in this Chamber is not worried about temporary accommodation, they are not paying attention; that is how serious this is. It is terrible for our kids, and for the taxpayer, because it is so expensive. I will follow up with her. A lot of work has already been done on the homelessness strategy. We want to get it confirmed as soon as possible. I will engage fully with the Select Committee on the strategy to ensure that we get it right, and we will come back to her shortly with the details of how we will do that together.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Every night, over 1,000 children are homeless in my city; they are either in temporary accommodation, or even worse off. Does the Minister agree that this is totally unacceptable for a modern society, and that the Government must bring forward its cross-departmental plan to tackle youth homelessness?

[Alison McGovern]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I just said to the Chair of the Select Committee, but let me confirm again that any child in temporary accommodation, particularly B&B accommodation, who has not got enough space to do their homework pays the price—not just through what they are going through today, but in the future. We cannot accept that. We cannot stand for it, and we should work together across this House to bring this to an end.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Thanks to the action of the previous Government and councils up and down the country, 90% of rough sleepers were got off the streets at the beginning of the pandemic, five and half years ago. Tragically, since then, most of those people—young and old—have returned to rough sleeping. In constituencies like mine, street homelessness is not so obvious—people are living and sleeping in woods, ruins and so on—yet the tragedy is still there. What lessons can the Minister and the Government learn from that rapid removal of homeless people from the streets in 2020, so that they can implement it again?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Homelessness can be about rough sleeping, but there is also hidden homelessness. Our forthcoming strategy needs to consider all that in the round. He asks me what lesson I take from what happened a few years ago—and, I would argue, from how we reduced rough sleeping in the past. I would say that politics is about choices. We took the choice last week to invest, in-year, an extra £84 million in preventing and addressing homelessness. That is the right thing to ensure that everybody in this country is safe and has a roof over their head.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. Youth and overall homelessness have increased since the Government took office, and charities have been harmed by policies such as the national insurance rises imposed by the Chancellor. We welcome the additional money that the Government have allocated for tackling homelessness this winter, but it is an admission that they have failed in their pledge to reduce homelessness. The former Minister had a novel touch, and sent the figure the wrong way. I will ask this Minister the same question that I asked in the previous Session: does she accept that homelessness has risen under this Government, and will she commit to eliminating it by the end of this Parliament?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I refer him to the comments that I made to colleagues. The homelessness strategy is on its way. I am afraid that we could not overturn 14 years of wrong choices in the time that we have had in office—that is not realistic—but our strategy on its way. If there is cross-party support for going much further to reduce the use of temporary accommodation and ensure that everyone has a roof over their head, I will happily work with him to do that together.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities to build social housing in Buckingham and Bletchley constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

T3.   Tory cuts to local authorities cruelly caused lasting damage to many communities. What a contrast to the Government’s Pride in Place programme awards to Park End and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, which will change lives for the better. Does the Secretary of State agree that 100% council tax equalisation and a new children’s formula are essential elements to fully deliver for those communities that were totally overlooked by the Conservatives?

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is important that we get that right, and we will have further discussions about it shortly. I might disagree with my hon. Friend on the importance of Pride in Place, which will turn around some of the decline created by the Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T2. Whether Essex ends up with three, four or five authorities under the local government reforms, my constituents will certainly come under an authority that is no longer local. As part of the reforms, will more powers be devolved to town and parish councils that are able to understand and properly reflect their local residents?

[Alison McGovern]

Local government reorganisation will create opportunities to improve public services, efficiency and clarity. The final proposals from councils in Essex were submitted by 26 September, and we anticipate launching a statutory consultation in November. I am sure we will discuss the right hon. Gentleman’s points in detail over the weeks and months to come.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T5. Across the Sheffield city council area, including my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, 26,400 people are waiting for council homes. That is a legacy of the Conservative Government in coalition making it more difficult for empty homes to be brought back into residential use. Will the Minister work with Sheffield city council and me to ensure that it has increased resources and powers to expedite bringing empty homes back into use, so that my constituents and those across the authority can stay near but go far?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

We in Leicestershire have three, if not four, plans for our reorganisation, with no agreement. We also have a county council run by Reform, which has already had not one but two reshuffles, losing its cabinet leads for social services and finance. While 70% of its budget is spent on social services and special educational needs and disabilities, what assurances can the Government give me that my constituents will get those services, and that those services will be protected, when there already seems to be chaos in the council?

[Alison McGovern]

As I mentioned some moments ago, reorganisation creates an opportunity for simpler and clearer local services. I look forward to working with Members across the House to get it right, particularly in tackling some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T6. Another vape shop opened on one of my high streets in Bassetlaw last week, and yet another opened in a vacated bank less than a month ago. People tell me, and I tend to agree with them, that nobody knows how those shops will sustain an income to keep them going. What are the Government doing to take on rogue traders?

--- Later in debate ---

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State and the other Ministers on the Front Bench have to great fanfare today talked about responsible governance, but Basildon council and its Labour leader have repeatedly failed to meet basic housing standards. Worse than that, its leader has gone live on social media to admit to counting postal votes and using that information to influence a recent by-election. When he is held to account, will Ministers agree to throwing him out of their party?

[Alison McGovern]

I am unclear about the exact details of what the hon. Member is raising, but if he would like to write to me or the Secretary of State providing details, we will make sure that he receives a swift response.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

South Shore in my constituency is one of the most deprived areas in the country. It has just been named by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which outlined 34 mission-critical neighbourhoods, as No. 1 for hyper-local need. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can improve South Shore in Blackpool?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I responded to the right hon. Member’s colleague from Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), just a moment ago, and I refer him to that answer. We have a process under way, and I will be engaging with colleagues right across the House on it. If the right hon. Member would like to get in touch with me directly, I would be happy to receive his representations.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I am pleased that Everton East in my constituency will receive £20 million in Pride in Place funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Pride in Place programme not only talks about devolution, but delivers it?

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The Government have now delayed their decision on local government reorganisation in Surrey. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are using this delay to protect my constituents in Esher and Walton from the Tory debt of neighbouring councils with which they might be grouped? Will the planned elections in May go ahead?

[Alison McGovern]

As I have said a number of times on different aspects of this policy, the process is under way. If the hon. Member would like to write to me directly, I will make sure that she receives a response.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I know that Ministers do not comment on ongoing planning applications, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to an inconsistency? Currently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is changing its guidance on heather burning on deep peat because of climate change concerns, but there has not been a concurrent change to planning guidance on building on peat. Will the Minister agree to look at that, so that my constituents can be sure that any developments are safe and take account of climate implications?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Residents of Rutland overwhelmingly want to join Stamford, but the council is pressing ahead with an unwanted Leicestershire merger; residents of South Kesteven do not want to join a mega Lincolnshire council, but are being pushed towards it; and in Leicestershire my constituents do not want a Leicester city takeover. What reassurance will the Government give that democracy will not die under these reforms, and that local people’s voices will be heard?

[Alison McGovern]

I can certainly confirm that democracy will not die. I know that officials in the Department will have heard what the hon. Lady has said, and I will accept her question as representations on the issue of local government.

Religious Crematoriums

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing today’s important debate. It was so good to hear her speak of the importance of the diversity of faiths in our country. As she says, all parts of government must consider properly their duties under the Equality Act.

I begin by acknowledging the unique needs of faith and belief communities regarding burial and cremation practices. As the hon. Member just said, each of us deserves dignity in death. Cremation offers a dignified way to say goodbye to a loved one by providing a respectful, professional and compassionate process for the deceased and their grieving family and friends.

Cremation has become the majority choice for funerals. According to the Cremation Society, cremation accounts for 80% of funerals in the United Kingdom, compared with about 35% in the 1960s. As cremations become more common, it is imperative that there are high-quality crematoriums that fully respect the cultural and religious traditions of all faiths and beliefs, as well as those, like me, of no faith at all. It is with that in mind that service providers should be expected to take into full consideration the sacred funeral rites and specific rituals of our diverse communities, particularly Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, as well as those of other religious backgrounds.

Although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for law and policy relating to cremation, the Government do not have direct operational responsibility for the provision of cremation services, which, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out, are provided by local authorities or, in some cases, private companies. As such, the UK Government are not directly involved with operational issues such as the provision of facilities or multilingual support in crematoriums, which remain a matter for individual cremation authorities. There is no central funding available for the building of crematoriums.

However, cremations must be conducted in accordance with the legislative framework set out in the Cremation Act 1902 and the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008. The Act defines what constitutes a crematorium and includes siting restrictions, such as minimum required distances from residential dwellings and public highways, or other planning considerations. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, sites must also meet environmental and planning requirements before any crematoriums can be built.

I am aware of the consultation carried out in 2016 under the previous Administration, and the then Government’s response covered some of the issues that we are discussing today. The consultation identified a number of issues with crematoriums. These included the inappropriate use of religious iconography, the lack of car parking spaces and a perceived lack of awareness of the specific needs of faith groups, as the hon. Member pointed out.

The previous Government’s response, published in 2019, highlighted the need to recognise that different cultures and faiths have particular needs, and that service providers, including local authorities, should take all reasonable steps to allow those specific needs to be met. The Minister for Faith at the time wrote to all local authorities in England to inform them of this.

Finally, I want to touch on the work of the Law Commission, and to respond to the points that the hon. Member made. The Law Commission is currently undertaking further work on this issue. Its project, “Burial, cremation and new funerary methods”, seeks to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die, and to make recommendations that will provide modern, certain and consistent regulation across different funerary methods. As part of that, the Law Commission is considering issues pertaining to the different cultural and religious needs of faith groups. In my opinion, that ought to be a response in part to the points the hon. Member made.

The hon. Member asked me to consider a review of provision, to work with local authorities to respond to need, and to make sure that equality duty considerations are taken on board. I am not the Minister for Faith, who is currently in a Bill Committee, but I will relay to her the points that have been conveyed in this debate and suggest that she reaches out to discuss those points with the hon. Member in the context of that Law Commission review. At some point, there will undoubtedly be a full response to the review.

In my ongoing work with local authorities, I am sure that I will also have the opportunity to flag some of the issues that the hon. Member raised. I consider it very important that we all take our duties under the Equality Act very seriously. The burial and cremation strand of the Law Commission’s work began last year, the consultation closed in January, and I understand that it anticipates publishing its report on this strand of the project by the end of 2025. I am sure the Law Commission would welcome representations from the hon. Member.

I feel there are significant issues here, and I am sure that, between ministerial teams and concerned Members, we can make progress. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire for raising this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I feel that if anybody has a chance in this place of persuading the vast ranks of angry Lords in the other place that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) described earlier, it is him. Unfortunately, even he does not have much of a chance given the levels of consternation down the corridor at the clauses in particular that we have been discussing.

Unfortunately, to add insult to injury, this afternoon—while we have been debating—the Prime Minister has given the game away, because he has said that if the negotiations that we are all very concerned about are completed in a positive way, these clauses will not even be needed. I am worried about that because, as any parent knows, when it becomes clear that it is just a negotiation tactic and you do not really mean it, you have already lost. More seriously, I listened to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) describe the situation—he and I do not agree on much politically, I would think—and he said that, if these clauses are really needed, they are needed. If they are just able to be removed, depending on the negotiations, they are not really needed, and that is at the heart of the problem.

Their lordships have explained why the rule of law matters for its own sake. I am no great legislative or legal theorist, but I know why the rule of law matters for all our sakes. It is because of the terrible economic impact of the current situation that we all face. Unfortunately, the Chancellor, when he gave his statement last week, did not make much of it, but the OBR described it in all its horrendous glory—that on top of the gruesome impact of the pandemic on jobs and the economy of this country, the situation that we are facing next year with Brexit could be horrendous.

This matters, because this Bill describes exactly how economies function by common rules, by frameworks applying consistently to markets over space and time. They do that because there are institutions that police those rules, and therefore the institutions that we create matter, and the trust in those institutions matters. They matter not just for their own sake, but for the markets that they underpin, the jobs of the people who work in them and the fate of the people who are part of them. Every step that we take either builds those institutions or knocks them down. Every action creates trust or undermines that trust. Because trade is a repeated exercise, as others have mentioned, all of this debate makes it harder for us to agree new institutions, new frameworks and new rules in the future. That is how our reputation as an international party is won or lost. I know this: when we engage in this kind of madness, there is always a price, and not just some kind of theoretical, legalistic nicety of a price. There is a price in jobs for my constituents and there is a price at the shops every time my constituents do their shopping. So we can have no more of this.

Finally, on devolution, we have heard about the deep consternation among those in the devolved institutions about the clauses in the Bill that relate to them. It is about time we realised the connection between unpredictable and unreliable action from the UK Government, and the deep dissatisfaction in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I speak not only having heard those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; I speak from Merseyside, where European structural funds made a profound difference to our economy. Why? Because the investment was predictable; it was possible to understand why that investment was being made; and it was possible to understand what would happen to that investment for the future. The European Union was a reliable investment partner. If the UK Government choose never to be reliable, the people in this country will pay the price.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. With five minutes, I call Andrew Bowie.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that too many homes have been built in this country to poor standards in the recent past. That is why we are now legislating for the new homes ombudsman, and we are already taking action by working with the New Homes Quality Board to raise standards. We will also respond in due course to the Law Commission’s important reports, with which we intend to right the wrongs of leasehold as quickly as possible.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

You and Ministers, Mr Speaker, will remember that, three and a half years ago, New Ferry in my constituency suffered from a terrible gas explosion, which hurt people and left a massive hole in our town centre. I am grateful that, this week, Ministers will meet me to discuss progress that we are making rebuilding New Ferry. I simply ask the Minister if he will join with me to publicly thank, and place on the record the thanks of all of us to, the people of New Ferry for the work that they have done to rebuild our town centre.

[Luke Hall]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I pay extreme tribute to the residents, businesses and charitable organisations in New Ferry who have worked so hard to recover and get the town back on its feet over the past three years. I know that she is meeting one of my ministerial colleagues later this week, but as a Local Government Minister I am also at her disposal to discuss this hugely important matter in her constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend who, in her former role as leader of Westminster Council, played a critical role in taking forward these issues. I join her in praising the staff of The Passage, which is a phenomenal organisation. I have seen some of its work in practice. There are many great organisations in her constituency. I visited King George’s Hostel in Victoria just two weeks ago and was incredibly impressed by its staff. The approach I will be taking as Secretary of State will be to bring together for the first time health with housing, because homelessness is not just a housing crisis but a crisis of addiction and mental health. By bringing them together in a co-ordinated fashion for the first time, I genuinely believe we will be able to tackle this issue.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Nearly three years ago, a terrible explosion in New Ferry in my constituency left many buildings derelict. Local residents tell me that we now have people sleeping rough in derelict buildings, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 January asking if he would meet me to discuss the situation in New Ferry and the fact that the Government need to help us. Please, will he meet me?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We note the Minister’s choice of weekend reading: the capital plan. I hope he found it stimulating or in some way therapeutic. I am sure we will hear his impressions on that matter in due course.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of spending through local government, will the Minister tell us when we will see the results of the successful bidders for the future high street fund?

[Rishi Sunak]

Successive rounds of bidding are currently in process. I can write to the hon. Lady with an exact date, if one is available from my hon. Friend the high streets Minister. More broadly, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need to measure the effectiveness of what local government does. In particular, the troubled families programme, with its extensive evaluation, provides great evidence to everyone in the House on the valuable early years prevention work that local councils do.

New Ferry Regeneration

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. I want to discuss a matter that is very important to me, my constituents and all those in Merseyside, and that is the situation in New Ferry.

New Ferry is a small town that I represent, and it also happens to be the place where I live and where my office is. It is very important to all my constituents. I am glad to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), has visited New Ferry, which we were grateful for. Nearly two years ago the town suffered a most terrible explosion.

At just after 9 o’clock on a Saturday evening on 25 March, there was a huge blast. This is an ongoing matter before the courts, so I will not discuss the specifics of the explosion, but I want to say a few words about New Ferry as a place. The Minister knows New Ferry, as he has visited it, but many others will not be aware of what it is like. I want to talk about the response to that explosion, the situation we are now in and the rebuilding of New Ferry, and ask the Minister some questions.

New Ferry is a small town on the Wirral peninsula in Merseyside. It is just south of Birkenhead. For many years, it was a place where ferries stopped, hence its name; long ago, the Mersey ferries stopped there. It was a town where people would go shopping. There used to be a number of hotels and other historic buildings, but over time, the ferries ceased calling there, and it just became a place where people would go to shop. This will be a familiar story. As with lots of our high streets up and down the country, the change in New Ferry has been significant, particularly over the past 20 years. The onset of out-of-town shopping and then the impact of the internet has hit New Ferry just as it has hit many other places.

Before the blast two years ago, we already had a big challenge in New Ferry. We had used the coalition Government’s initiative of having a town team to try to get more shops into New Ferry and more events happening that would bring people into the town centre. Local people put lots of effort into that. We had arts and cultural events in New Ferry, but nothing really stuck because the quality of many buildings was very poor, as it is now. It was hard to get small businesses to use those buildings and bring them back to life.

The place was crying out for investment, and then two years ago we had the terrible event of the huge explosion. The community was struggling with the fact that the place they loved and had grown up in was no longer somewhere they could go shopping to buy fruit and veg or a loaf of bread. Lots of businesses had closed down already. Major supermarkets had left, and we had seen the last bank in the town close.

I had already been campaigning for regeneration when the blast happened. As I said, I am not able to talk about the details because of the legal situation. However, I want to put this on the record. As the Minister knows, the blast was extraordinarily traumatic for the area. It had a big impact on people. One of the frustrations that people in New Ferry feel is that although, in the aftermath of the blast, they were listened to and people saw the pain that had been caused, the response has been too little and too slow. I turn now to that response.

After the blast, there was a question about whether Wirral Council would apply for the Bellwin scheme, but it was advised not to apply for funding from that scheme because the response required at that time did not hit the £500,000 threshold. There is a problem because, as I understand it, the rules of the scheme stipulate that the assessment of funds needed under the scheme had to be completed within four weeks. However, the site was completely unsafe, and it remained out of bounds for reasons of investigation for six weeks. In my opinion, the council was not properly in control of the scene, and it was not able to do what it would have needed to do under the Bellwin scheme. That was a problem, and it has been quite difficult to find out more about whether there are any exemptions under the scheme, or how this could be reopened.

I was glad that, in September 2018, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government received a delegation from New Ferry in his office here, and he listened carefully to what my constituents said. Unfortunately, in the letter he wrote to us after that meeting, he said that no change in the Government’s approach would be forthcoming, and that they were still not prepared to look again at the issue of the Bellwin scheme. That is really hard for my constituents to take. Given the level of cuts to Wirral Council, the situation that New Ferry was already in and the fact that it is really struggling, the idea that Wirral council tax payers should just pick up the entirety of the bill for what happened in New Ferry, through no fault of the people there, is one that my constituents find very difficult to understand. I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on that.

I want to talk about the rebuilding of New Ferry. As I have said, the place needed regeneration long before the blast. It was crying out for it. I had spent hours and hours in meetings with potential developers—such as the Co-op supermarket, which owns one of the buildings—desperately trying to say to people that this could be a great place if they would be prepared to invest in it. Unfortunately, there has never been significant regeneration capital from the Government for New Ferry, and that has held the place back because commercial organisations must feel that it is too big a risk. It has always needed the state to step in, and that has never happened. It is happening now in a small way, but my complaint is that it is not being done quickly enough and we really need to see progress, because people in New Ferry are losing faith in that ever happening.

This is the situation as it is today. Homes England, which the Government charge with regeneration, has now spent about £100,000 on a plan and a study of how the rebuild should happen, but that means that we are still—two years on—only in the planning stage. I think most people, and certainly most people in Merseyside who drive through New Ferry, think it is actually a bit ridiculous that we have not been able to move this on faster. I really want to say to the Minister: this has got to happen more quickly.

The consultation options are out there, and people are talking about them. I would like to support an option that has been put forward by traders and residents that would see more rejuvenation of the town centre. They want better parking arrangements, which will help with the footfall, and units of different sizes, so that we are not just reliant on big business coming in to rescue New Ferry, but can have small and developing businesses too, and I support that.

The city region is also trying to step in and help. Applications have been made to the town centre fund from the Liverpool city region. That is a really positive option that could help us with the town centre and make sure that we still keep a commercial heart, not just become a dormitory area. I think I know what the Minister is going to say, which is that we should rely on what the Liverpool city region is doing. I know that the Minister supports devolution, as I do, and that is fine.

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

I support Liverpool too.

[Alison McGovern]

We both support Liverpool, and we both support devolution—but it is not really a good enough answer. When, through no fault of its own, Salisbury experienced terrible events that damaged its prosperity and possibilities, the Government found £2.5 million to assist it. I and my constituents, and indeed the public at large, do not understand why such support was not found for New Ferry. Put simply, if such resources could be allocated to New Ferry, rather than needing permanently to be bid for, asked for, or cobbled together from different sources, we could get that regeneration and rebuild under way. That is why it is slow. The Government have all the resources of the Treasury, and they could help people in New Ferry today.

I am grateful that the Minister came to meet people, and that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government met my constituents, but that is not enough because we need actions, not just people listening. Will the Minister answer a simple question today? Can he commit capital, so that when we have finished the consultation on what the rebuild will look like, we will know that those plans will happen, and that we will not be stuck in the permanent state that I—and before me my predecessor, Ben Chapman—have been stuck in, with constant bidding rounds where money never comes forward? The plans are there, but they never seem to be realised to allow people to see the prospects of our town changing. That is what people want. They do not want any more plans and consultations; they want action.

In conclusion, across the road from my office in New Ferry is a block of derelict shops. Every time I walk to my office, I walk past those shops and I think about the impotence of politics, and about the lack of care and attention for the ordinary considerations of British people. The Minister knows this already, but I repeat that if he thinks I will ignore the dereliction and lack of care and attention in the town of New Ferry, or that I will stop coming to the House to badger the Government and ask them to do more, and to request action that is quicker and has more effect, he is wrong. Nobody in New Ferry will ever give up on the place that we love and care about. I will never give up asking the Minister, so he might as well just say yes today.

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

The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has made an impassioned plea on behalf of her constituents, and I pay tribute to her for her tenacity and for the regularity with which she has brought this important issue to the House. Her constituents should be proud of the service that she offers as a constituency Member of Parliament who cares passionately about the community she represents.

As the hon. Lady said, I visited New Ferry a couple of months after the initial explosion, and nobody who has been there—the hon. Lady visits every week when she walks to her office—could be anything other than moved by the devastation caused by the explosion. She is right to say that today we should not get into the details of how that explosion may have happened. There will, I hope, be a day of reckoning regarding the cause of the explosion, but it will not be today.

Immediately after the event the Government, as with all such incidents, deployed one of our liaison teams—we call it a RED team, as it covers resilience, emergencies and disasters—to work with Wirral Council and consider how to support it. The hon. Lady mentioned a good meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and residents and business owners from her area. She says that she will not ignore any dereliction of duty and that she will keep on fighting. I am sure that after that meeting she, like me, went away and reflected on the fact that in some areas Wirral Council had failed to react correctly and speedily enough on behalf of its constituents. It had a hardship fund at the time that could have been accessed, but it was not. I know a hardship fund has now been made available. At the time of the explosion, despite what the hon. Lady says about local authorities up and down the country being hard pushed in terms of public finances—and I accept that Wirral Council is one of them—the council did have some £68 million in unallocated reserves.

As well as pushing me on the Government’s response, I hope that the hon. Lady will continue to push Wirral Council. In the very moving meeting we held with the Secretary of State, it was absolutely clear that people felt that the initial response—what people often talk about immediately after such disasters—had simply not been good enough from Wirral Council, despite the support from the Government and the resilience and emergency division. There may be lessons for the Government to learn—I will come on to some of the ways in which we will continue to support the people of New Ferry—but there are also lessons for the local authority to learn. I will leave my remarks there, but if the hon. Lady would like to talk to me about that after this debate, I will happily do so privately.

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct to say that the regeneration of the site has been slower than any of us would have hoped for. Following my visit in June 2017, I immediately asked Homes England to make £100,000 available to work jointly with the local authority on a regeneration plan. Those plans, by their very nature, are complicated and take some time to work up. There was, however, a significant delay on that plan coming back to Government with any request for support.

I welcome the work that has been undertaken. There has been an opportunity for local residents to ensure that their views are heard. The council, in conjunction with Homes England, is now evaluating the comments from the feedback sessions that were held in New Ferry. Work is ongoing to find a preferred residential mix-use development for New Ferry. I recognise what the hon. Lady says about the challenge facing high streets up and down the country. She makes the point extremely well that any regeneration in New Ferry must be of that mixed residential and commercial use for it to continue to be sustainable. In parallel to that, Wirral Council is planning to invest £1.3 million to start the land assembly of the New Ferry site, which will enable that exciting regeneration to take place.

On Government support, the hon. Lady has campaigned tirelessly to support the residents and businesses affected. She talks about the Salisbury nerve agent attack, an appalling national and international incident that saw the murder and attempted murder of people by foreign actors on British soil, and the support the Government made available to the people of the city of Salisbury. Such support is normally dealt with through a Bellwin scheme. The hon. Lady correctly says that the Bellwin scheme is for expenditure by Wirral Council, which is currently in excess of £495,000. At the time the discussions were taking place, Wirral Council estimated that it had spent only £400,000.

I would point out that following the explosion—the hon. Lady is absolutely correct—the site was in the hands of Merseyside police, who were, quite correctly, gathering evidence about any criminal acts that may or may not have happened on that site as part of the explosion. It was handed back over to Wirral Council on 6 April. Although there was some delay in the council gaining control of the site, there was ample time and it was well within the Bellwin scheme qualifying period. It may have been apparent to the local authority at the time that it would not be successful in putting forward a claim, but it is simply not correct to say that it did not get control of the site within the claim period. I understand that Wirral Council has agreed to set aside funding for individual residents and business owners who have suffered considerable financial hardship in the period following the explosion, and I welcome that.

I shall now turn to what help the Government can, and I hope will, provide to the residents of New Ferry. I understand that a bid of some £5 million has been made to the Mayor of Liverpool City Region’s town centre fund. That is, of course, Government money that is part of the gain share that gets paid to the city. I hope that Steve Rotheram, former Member of this House and Mayor of Liverpool City Region, will look with favour upon the application along the lines of the plan that has jointly been worked up with the Homes and Communities Agency.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister describes the city region funding as “Government money”. In some sense, we can describe anything that comes from the Treasury as Government money, but if New Ferry is not helped directly by the Government, that city region development money that was there for the purposes of rebalancing our economy is effectively doing the work that the Government should be doing in this shocking and terrible event. It is simply not acceptable to the people of New Ferry that they should have to bid to a fund that is there for general economic development.

[Jake Berry]

For a start, I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that there is actually no such thing as Government money. It all belongs to all of us as taxpayers. I gently point out—I did so in my opening remarks, and I do not want to get in a war of words about this—that at the time of the explosion, Wirral Council had tens of millions of pounds in reserves, which was money paid in by Wirral taxpayers over a period. In her speech, the hon. Lady, who has been in Parliament since 2010—we came in together—talked about the need for regeneration of this site under her predecessor’s term as the Member of Parliament. She talked about how in her entire time in Parliament—nine years in total—she has been campaigning for the redevelopment of this site. Although, as she points out, the explosion has taken something from being “important” to “urgent”—and that is absolutely correct—it is an area that would, I hope, have been the recipient of regeneration funds from the Liverpool city region in any event. However, I accept that this explosion has taken it from being important to urgent. I do not think that anyone could deny that.

More widely, there is the future high streets fund, which was announced at the last Budget. It is open for bids of exactly this type, looking at a wider high street and town regeneration plan. The plan is already in existence. The expression of interest for the future high streets fund has to be in by 22 March. The hon. Lady said, I think, “bid, bid and bid again”. With the future high streets fund, we have ensured that the expression of interest round is very light touch. I am aware of the bidding fatigue in local authorities—in fact, it affects my authority in Lancashire—so we have tried to ensure that the first round of bidding for the future high streets fund is at a very low bar to enable local authorities to access it without unnecessary expense. Working up that bid to the second phase—if areas are successful in that competitive fund—is revenue-funded, so the Government will pay for and support the bid, working it up with the local authority.

I gently mention to the hon. Lady that I hope that, using her influence, she may be able to persuade Wirral Council to bring New Ferry forward as its preferred bidder for the future high streets fund. As she rightly says, it has made significant progress with the Homes and Communities Agency, looking at wider regeneration. In that fund, there is the possibility of fast-track funding for areas that already have a plan to deliver for their area. The intention is that the capital element of the fund could be spent this year, so if New Ferry were successful, either by being fast-tracked or by getting into the second round, it would mean that support could be available from central Government this year as part of our desire to invest in our high streets up and down the country and see wider regeneration.

Finally I shall turn to the public support available from central Government. In addition to the Mayor’s fund and the future high streets fund, this week we announced the stronger towns fund, which involves a wider regeneration package that could encompass New Ferry, Port Sunlight and other areas and looks at how, on a town deal basis, areas could pull together a wider bid to Government. That is more long term and may not lend itself as well to this redevelopment, which, as the hon. Lady said, has gone from important to urgent, but it is available. In terms of Government support, however, the future high streets fund, which is a competitive fund, albeit with a light-touch bidding scenario, is probably the way to go.

Finally, I want to talk about the importance of devolution. The Liverpool city region, which I know well, having been born and brought up in the city of Liverpool, is really changing the conversation around politics. The hon. Lady is an exemplar of that. She, quite rightly, is fighting like hell for her constituents. I have huge admiration for it. It is evident in the way she brings this debate back to the House of Commons and has meetings with the Secretary of State. It is clear that she will never ever give up, as she says.

I think that devolution is part of that and I am very pleased to be part of a Government who have taken real power, money and influence and returned it to the people of Merseyside. I hope that with the Mayor’s gain share fund and the opportunities for redevelopment it will also deliver for the people of New Ferry, who I know the hon. Lady will continue to work for.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are serious long-term decisions to be made about the social care system and how we place it on a sustainable footing, not least how we ensure that health and social care are better aligned. I am working closely with the Health Secretary on this and we will be publishing our Green Paper on the future of social care shortly.

The Budget also provided a further £420 million to help councils to carry out repairs on our roads—money that will help to improve access to workplaces, high streets and other community facilities. I will have more to say about overall funding for local government when I publish the provisional local government finance settlement later this year.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, just as I was grateful to him for meeting my constituents from New Ferry, but when they heard the Budget on Monday and heard about the investment he is talking about for potholes, they felt abandoned once again. There was nothing in the Budget for the people in New Ferry, who face absolute devastation, as the Secretary of State knows well.

[James Brokenshire]

I am very conscious of the particular issue the hon. Lady highlights to the House, and indeed I greatly appreciated the opportunity I had to meet her constituents, to hear their stories and to hear about the impact the devastating incident has had on that community. I am still considering what the options are, to see how the regeneration can be provided and work can be conducted with the local authority, so I very much look forward to continuing to remain in discussion with the hon. Lady on what I know is a very serious and significant community issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to raise on behalf of my constituents a glaring injustice: the lack of funds for rebuilding New Ferry. Members will remember the horrific explosion in my town in March 2017. To date, the Government have not committed anything like the funds they have handed over to Salisbury, or anything like the funds they have handed over to Belfast for the destroyed Primark. The people of New Ferry are bitterly angry, and their voice must be heard by Ministers on the Treasury Bench.

I listened to what Conservative Members said about tax cuts, and I recognise what is happening. This is just what the American Republicans do. They want big tax cuts for the wealthy, so they choose some so-called middle class profession and, as part of their package of big tax cuts for the wealthy, put in a nugatory amount for those who seem to be in the middle. They persuade the nation that we should have tax cuts on that basis, and they hide what they are doing—handing back huge amounts to the already wealthy—by dressing it up as money for the middle class.

In this Budget we are talking about pennies a week for people on average incomes, and when that is seen alongside the impact of universal credit, everything gets worse for people in the middle. It is not good enough to say that we cannot do better on universal credit when we are giving away £2.8 billion in one year, 84% of which goes to the top half of the distribution, with 34% of that going to the top 10%. That is a regressive measure, and if we believe in progressive politics, we should stand against it and say that what we need is a truly progressive tax system and proper funding for our public services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]