Birmingham City Council

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham city council and on the issues affecting the waste service.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government. The public rightly expect and deserve well-functioning local councils that provide the essential statutory services that residents rely on. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham city council for the past 18 months to support it in its recovery, and today I am publishing their latest report into the progress on that journey. The report lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham, as the ongoing dispute in the waste service is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets. I will therefore take this opportunity to update the House on the status of that dispute.

To address the report first, the council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey, and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress on addressing historical equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking the difficult decisions to get the council back on track, and the commissioners have recognised his calm leadership through stormy waters. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand, and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by reaching an agreement to settle the outstanding claims and end the ongoing equal pay saga. It is also set to re-implement a strategy for the Oracle IT system.

Those improvements are encouraging, but challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain momentum. There is a difficult road ahead on key aspects of the best value regime—on governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery. As Members will know, there is a live industrial action in waste services, involving one of the three recognised trade unions in that area. The Government will support the leader and his team in Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historical issues. That support includes an increase in core spending power for 2025-26 of up to 9.8%, or £131 million. That figure includes £39.3 million through the new one-off recovery grant, which illustrates this Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system. We have also put in place an in-principle agreement for exceptional financial support totalling £1.24 billion.

Turning to the waste dispute, councils deliver over 800 vital services that make a huge difference to millions of people across the country. However, it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Members across the House will know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local people, and I know that hon. Members whose constituents are affected will be acutely aware of that disruption.

From the outset, I want to be clear that the statutory intervention is led by commissioners, and Ministers cannot legally intervene in this industrial action. However, I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout this, as they have sought to find a resolution in which the reforms needed to build a sustainable council are still undertaken, and the waste collection service returns to functioning normally, in the way that Members would expect. This situation is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived residents. As a result, Birmingham has today declared a major incident, so that it can use the mechanisms that it needs to better manage the impact on local residents. I support that decision, and I will back local leaders in bringing the situation under control in the weeks to come.

Well-established arrangements are in place to enable local areas to escalate issues when they need support, and the Government are monitoring the situation closely. This is a local issue, and it is right that the key public sector partners in Birmingham lead on it. If leaders in Birmingham feel that tackling these issues would require resources beyond those available to them, and request national support, we of course stand ready to respond to any such request. This Government will always back local leaders and give them the support that they need, not swoop in to criticise or take over from Whitehall. We will not hesitate to give support in any way that Birmingham leaders need. As Parliament would expect, a meeting will take place with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support and protect public health.

It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, for the benefit of Birmingham’s residents that this industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to get around the table and find a resolution. Any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure fit-for-purpose waste collection services, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation and transformation for many years, so any deal reached must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue. I support the council on its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that residents in Birmingham deserve. We will support the council in resolving its historic issues and establishing the leadership, governance and culture that will drive good-quality public services for the people of that city, so that it can take its rightful place with confidence as one of our great UK cities.

As the council moves to the next stage of intervention, I will continue to work with the council, commissioners and the wider local government sector to understand how we can best ensure that residents get what they need from their local council. I will monitor progress, as I have done since the general election, to ensure that continuous improvement led by the council can be secured. As I am sure the whole House would expect, the commissioner arrangements will need to remain in place while the situation in Birmingham is so fragile. The commissioners have a vital role to play in supporting Birmingham’s transformation, working hand in glove with local leaders.

The Government remain committed to working in genuine partnership with the city and its council, and I continue to encourage the council to strengthen its partnerships with regional stakeholders, including Mayor Parker in the West Midlands combined authority, to support economic growth and financial sustainability. We are keen to promote growth and regeneration opportunities for Birmingham, and we are confident that as the council continues to work to fix the basics, while making progress against the milestones, local stakeholders will be encouraged to work in partnership with the council to deliver a clear vision for the future.

I look forward to continuing dialogue with commissioners, the council and regional partnerships, including Mayor Parker, on opportunities for growth in the region. A partnership approach with a clear vision will increase Birmingham’s capacity to achieve sustainable growth. The people of Birmingham deserve a well-run, accountable and financially stable council with good public services, not least waste collection services. I am encouraged by the council’s leadership and commitment to the same, and I look forward to the council beginning to demonstrate more ownership of its recovery, and to seeing evidence that it can deliver the lasting improvements that are required. I will deposit in the House Library copies of the commissioners’ report, which is being published today on gov.uk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind Members that if they are seeking to contribute in a statement, they must arrive on time. It is extremely discourteous to the Minister, and indeed to the House, to be late.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran all the way from the top floor of Derby Gate, but I was not fast enough. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an elected member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

The people of Birmingham have a right to receive decent services, and it is critical that the ongoing dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), we are concerned about the impact on public health and the environment, and urge the Government to confirm that when waste collection resumes, it will be safely disposed of and recycled where possible, and not just given to the cheapest bidder.

Fundamentally, the Conservative Government slashed funding to local authorities year on year, forcing councils to do more with less and plunging so many, of all political stripes, into financial crisis. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not yet addressed some of the financial crises, particularly around confirmation of the special educational needs override, which I know councils across the nation are really worried about, and which is making it more difficult for them to make decisions about their future plans.

We welcome the multi-year settlements, which I am sure the Minister will refer to, but we remain concerned about how effective they will be. Two recent examples give us cause for concern: the roads funding, which appears to give local authorities more money, actually cuts England’s road repair budget by 5%; and the employer’s national insurance change, which promised to cover councils’ costs for direct staffing in full, did not do so in some cases, including for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. All that is underpinned by a broken council tax system that is regressive. In some areas, the council tax base is totally inadequate to provide for the growing list of services, and the Lib Dems want to see a radical overhaul.

Birmingham should serve as a lesson for the Government, because this matter is a result of the long-running equal pay crisis. What learning are they taking from the situation in Birmingham, and what extra measures is the Minister introducing to prevent public health and community safety issues?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B, and by Lords amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 1

Determination of additional multipliers

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 15B to 15E, and Government motion to disagree to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15.

[Jim McMahon]

I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments tabled in lieu of those to which this House disagreed. I reiterate my thanks to Members of both Houses for their continued diligence in the scrutiny of these measures.

The Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of permanent lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from April 2026, ending the uncertainty of the temporary RHL relief. The RHL relief stopgap measure creates uncertainty for businesses, as well as a significant fiscal pressure on the Government. This Government are committed to addressing that in the Bill.

The Government face the significant challenge that we must balance the books, so we cannot and should not make tax cuts without ensuring that those tax cuts are funded. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable the introduction of a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000, ensuring that the permanent tax cut from RHL properties is sustainably funded from within the business rates system.

The Bill will also help to deliver another of the missions set out in the Government’s manifesto: breaking down barriers to opportunity. It will remove eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England. As I have said before in this House, the Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. To eliminate the barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where—let us remember—over 90% of children are educated. The revenue raised through the removal of charitable relief will help to deliver our commitments to education and young people and will help us to meet our overarching mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity for all.

Lords amendments 1B and 7B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier through regulations. Lords amendments 2B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. The amendments are unnecessary, because the powers that they seek already exist in the Bill. Let me be clear: the powers in the Bill will already allow the Government, should they so choose, to exclude certain properties from the higher multiplier. This is not the intention that I have set out; the Government’s intention is that the higher multiplier will apply to all properties at or above the £500,000 threshold to ensure that local multipliers can be adequately funded. I urge the House to reject the amendments, because they are not required and they duplicate powers that already exist in the Bill.

Lords amendment 13B, tabled by Lord Thurlow, would require the Government to

“undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.”

The amendment would require the review to be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed. It also specifies that the review

“must consider the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.”

We have previously considered two similar Lords amendments, and our position has not changed. The amendment is unnecessary. The “Transforming Business Rates” work that is under way recognises the cliff edge in the business rates system and recognises that it may act as a disincentive to expanding. I reiterate the assurance that I have previously provided to the House: the Government are already looking at this precise issue.

The second part of Lords amendment 13B would require the Government to undertake a review examining the merits of a separate use class in business rates and an associated multiplier for warehouses that cater for retailers without a material presence on the high street. As has been set out, the Government are already exploring that objective through the projects that have been mentioned. The “Digitalising Business Rates” project will allow us to match property-level data with the business-level data held by HM Revenue and Customs. This will improve the way in which we target business rates. The Government therefore remain of the view that the amendment is not required. I urge hon. Members to disagree to it.

The Government are fully committed to transforming the business rates system. This is simply the first step in a wider programme of change in a system that is long overdue for reform. As the Chancellor set out in the spring statement last week, the Government will publish an interim report setting a clear direction of travel for reform, with further policy details to follow at the autumn Budget. Reforms to the business rates system will be phased in over the Parliament.

Finally, amendments 15B to 15E seek to move the measure to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools from one that is being made by Parliament through this Bill to one that the Secretary of State would make through regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument. The Government are committed to delivering on our manifesto commitments, and part of that is removing the charitable rate relief from private schools to raise revenue to help deliver on our commitments to young people and education, including the in state sector where, as I said, most children are educated. The Government’s view is that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, the Government cannot accept them, and we ask the House to disagree to them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank their noble lordships for their diligent further consideration of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill and for the new amendments they have passed to address their concerns with the legislation. These changes shine a spotlight on Labour’s muddled priorities, exposing an approach that punishes aspiration, squeezes business, and increases the cost of living for consumers and the cost of doing business.

This very week, we will see the new jobs tax introduced and business rate hikes. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which is of great concern to many private sector businesses, and consumers will consequently see higher prices and lower wages. Tomorrow, we will also see a hike in council tax, energy prices, water bills, broadband and the BBC licence fee.

I will address the four primary groups of amendments in turn. First, Lords amendments 1B and 7B tackle the proposal to levy a higher multiplier on medical, dental and other healthcare settings. The amendments would prudently protect all healthcare premises—occupied or vacant—from the higher multiplier, addressing a glaring flaw in Labour’s Bill. For too long, we have cautioned against their detachment from practical governance, but now it is undeniable: rather than targeting the untaxed profits of internet giants as pledged, they are heaping costs on to hospitals and GP surgeries. It is baffling that Labour’s so-called reform of the rating system would burden healthcare at all, let alone doing so while they plan to hike national insurance on jobs tomorrow to fund the NHS—only to claw it back today by taxing those same health services.

Just yesterday, the Government pledged to funnel more cash into the NHS by taxing jobs through national insurance hikes, yet today they turn around and tax the NHS itself via business rates. It is a fiscal farce—a two-faced assault on healthcare that undermines their own rhetoric. As Conservative Members have mentioned in recent debates, Labour’s obsession with revenue grabs over sensible relief is choking the sectors we need most.

--- Later in debate ---

This measure is simply wrong, and I agree with the other place that the statutory instrument required to bring in the regulations should be voted on by both houses before such measures can be introduced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.

We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.

The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.

I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.

I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.

The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The rating system adequately reflects the scale of properties. Less than 1% of properties in the business rates system will use the higher multiplier. That will fund the tax break for those on the high street that will use the lower multipliers. In the evidence session —the hon. Gentleman was there—we heard retailers say, “Of course, that will have an impact on our distribution centres, but we have so many stores that are below the threshold.” That allows national retailers with multiple locations to benefit; in the round, they find themselves better off as a result of this policy. As for rebalancing the situation for online retailers and those on our high streets, that is exactly what this measure does. Big distribution centres will pay for that relief.

I once again thank hon. Members for their contributions, but for the reasons set out, I respectfully ask this House to disagree with the amendments before us.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. As the escalators in Portcullis House are still not working, I shall allow an additional two minutes for the Division.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We welcome scrutiny through amendments and the insight that the other place can provide, just as we welcomed scrutiny in the evidence sessions and Committee sittings; it adds value. We need to be honest: it is natural for Members to want to widen the scope of legislation during its passage, and to include more. In Government, we have to deal with the art of the possible, which means balancing a number of competing interests, not least the impact on taxpayers in the round. The Bill is targeted at those who need it the most—communities and local economies—and it is fully funded to ensure that it is sustainable. We cannot draw the legislation so wide that it does not stand the test of time and does not cover its own cost. That would not be responsible, and certainly would not be sustainable.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to implement the recommendations of the review. Given that we do not know what those recommendations would be, I trust the House will understand that we cannot accept an amendment to accept them blindly in advance.

Finally, Lords amendment 15 and consequential Lords amendments 17 to 19 would strike from the Bill the clause that removes charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. We are unable to accept these Lords amendments. This Government made a manifesto commitment to raise school standards for every child, break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. Achieving our ambition involves meeting our commitment to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools; the approach and design of this policy has been carefully considered in the light of that. The measures are necessary in order to raise the revenue to deliver on the Government’s commitment to education and young people, and to improve the state sector, where—let us be clear—90% of children are educated. This Government are prepared to take the tough but necessary decisions to deliver on those bold commitments, so, as with all the other amendments brought here from the other place, I cannot accept these Lords amendments. I hope that the rest of the House follows suit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Lords amendments. We shall not agree, and I will explain why. I thank the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill; in particular, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and amendments.

The legislation comes at a critical time for businesses. The partial withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief—a policy choice by this Government—is hitting businesses hard. The average pub is more than £5,000 worse off as a result of the Minister’s choices. That, together with the Government’s trash-talking of the economy, the £25 billion annual tax rise for businesses by means of the rise in employers’ national insurance, and the prospect of the job-destroying Employment Rights Bill, has led directly to a massive reduction in business confidence. According to the Institute of Directors, business confidence, which stood at a high of plus 5 in July last year, has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.

Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.

Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.

On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.

To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree.

[Munira Wilson]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.

Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.

Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 12 disagreed to.

After Clause 4

Review: threshold effect

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13.—(Jim McMahon.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Gideon Amos has not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. About 60 Members are seeking to get in, so after the Front-Bench speeches have been completed there will be a five-minute time limit.

Coastal Communities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

In many ways, my constituency of Southport is a typical coastal community and, like many coastal towns, it has seen better days. It is coping with challenges that do not necessarily impact inland areas to the same extent. Part of that negative change is due to the nature of the town’s economy, but a big part of it is due to its geography: it is a seaside town.

What made many of our seaside towns successful originally—the sense that they were a trip away from the big city and that people could travel for miles through the countryside to get to them—now militate against us. While it once might have been appealing for families from Manchester to take a packed lunch to the seaside and enjoy the scenic train route through Lancashire, it is no good for our commuters to still be stuck on that scenic route, trundling across the north-west to get to work and back every day. What was once our strength has now become our weakness.

Austerity has hit us hard too. The former Government removed in excess of £200 million a year from the local area. The multiplier effect of that has had an impact on private businesses in the town because when so many customers see that their wages are not keeping up with prices, then small businesses fail. We have seen a lot of that in Southport in the past decade.

Austerity manifests itself in different ways in different areas, and in my town austerity has manifested itself most prominently in the closure of the town’s seaside pier. A botched repair job 25 years ago means that there are now structural problems estimated to cost over £10 million to fix. The pier is in local authority ownership, and thanks to the previous Government, the local authority has not got the money to bring about the necessary repairs. I have been campaigning on innovative ways to ensure that piers across the country are safeguarded for the next generation.

This Labour Government have more coastal MPs than at any point in our country’s history, as is evidenced by the overwhelmingly empty Conservative Benches. The common issues faced by coastal towns are felt keenly by my colleagues on the Labour Benches. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Government are willing to commit to support our coastal communities and I too put on record my wish to see the creation of a specific Minister for coastal communities. The issues our areas share are so specific to the coast, common to each other and important to our residents that Government will gain greatly from a dedicated Minister ensuring that the views of our towns and areas are heard in this place.

I am sure that if government steps up and meets some of the challenges that our towns face, the decade of national renewal that we know the country needs could be implemented.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate two-minute time limit, I call Siân Berry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

Indeed, we need a place-based approach with that active state. If we want economic growth that reaches all parts of the country, invest in coastal communities. If we want public services that really improve the experience of people who are most alienated because of state failures, invest in coastal communities. If we want to create an environment that works for nature and people, invest in coastal communities. I am speaking not just about financial investment, but about investment of Government time, energy and focus.

When colleagues and I were trying to work out which Department would be answering this debate, we literally did not know. While I am obviously delighted to see the Minister in his place, the issues raised in this House today span all Departments, whether that is Health, Transport, Environment, Education, the Home Office, the Treasury or many others. I simply note that if there is not one Minister who fits the portfolio, there should be one—a Minister for coastal communities who can focus on regenerating our towns and growing our coastal economies.

I will end with a point about the previous Labour Government. In the 1990s, cities were not the places they are today. That Labour Government had a relentless focus on improving them, and the regeneration we have seen is testament to what can be delivered. Coastal towns are in the same position now, and the Labour Government have not only—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members will be aware that I will call the first Front Bencher at 4.38 pm. That means that not all Members will now get in. They might consider that when making interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My constituency of Scarborough and Whitby includes some of the most beautiful towns and villages in the country, but it also has some of the worst health outcomes. We have talked a lot about older people in this debate, and I will use my time to talk about younger people.

I am excited by the opportunities that the advent of renewable energy offers young people in my constituency. Scarborough university technical college is already training the engineers of the future, who will work on the wind farms off our coast. The Construction Skills Village in Eastfield is training apprentices in bricklaying, plastering and other trades to help build Labour’s 1.5 million new homes. However, we must deliver year-round, non-graduate careers for our coastal kids and ensure that funding is funnelled not into cities and universities, but into coastal communities. Only by doing this will we deliver on our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so brief. That brings us to the Front Benchers.

Point of Order

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, David Lawrence, a former Labour parliamentary candidate, put out a public statement saying that he was pleased to be

“invited to No. 10 for a preview of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill”,

a landmark piece of legislation yet to see the light of day in this House, despite a number of statements from Ministers about how significant and important it would be. May I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that important legislation deserving the scrutiny of Parliament is first seen in this House, not shared offline with Labour parliamentary candidates?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I assure the House that no one has had a preview? The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming to the House. Of course, we regularly consult stakeholders, but no one has had a preview before the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that point of clarification.

Bills Presented

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57

Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Jo Stevens and Secretary Ian Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about infrastructure; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision for a scheme, administered by Natural England, for a nature restoration levy payable by developers; to make provision about development corporations; to make provision about the compulsory purchase of land; to make provision about environmental outcomes reports; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 196) with explanatory notes (Bill 196—EN).

Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Jenrick, supported by Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Rebecca Harris, Dr Kieran Mullan and Helen Grant, presented a Bill to provide that the Sentencing Council may not issue sentencing guidelines without the consent of the Secretary of State; to give the Secretary of State the power to amend sentencing guidelines prepared by the Sentencing Council before they are issued; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 197).

Political Finance Rules

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose�]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. As Members will be able to tell, we have considerably more Members wishing to speak than we have time for, so perhaps we will start with an informal time limit of no more than five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

As the Prime Minister declared last year, and as we see so graphically on the world stage now, the �fight for trust� will be

�the battle that defines our political era.���[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 56.]

It is clear that if we MPs are to achieve the changes that people need most in their lives, we need a functioning democracy. If those we represent do not trust politicians to act in their best interest, we will not be an effective institution. Currently, it is simply not the case that they trust us. Both in the UK and across the globe, faith in politics and politicians is at an all-time low. In the UK, 76% of people have little to no trust in Members of this House�up from 54% a decade ago. I note with no great relish that this may not be surprising after years of a Conservative Government who were more concerned with their internal politics than the concerns of people around the country, but it should be a deep concern for us all. Rebuilding trust in politics is the goal, regardless of our political colour or persuasion. I am sure that all Members of the House can support that, but it will not happen overnight.

Research from the Electoral Commission shows that only 15% of people agree that there is transparency around the money spent and received by parties and campaigners�down from over a third in 2011. We should be clear that political donations are not inherently wrong and are part of a vibrant democratic system. Individuals should be able to take part in the democratic process through political donations, which can help people to further the goals and ideals that they believe in. Banning any donations would entrench power, leaving new or smaller parties unable to campaign against incumbents. It would work against many of our democratic principles, but it is clear that although political donations are a good thing, we must have adequate transparency as to the source of the money. That is currently not the case.

The legal framework for the political finance system is now over 25 years old, and though it was explicitly intended to ban foreign donations to UK political parties, there are clearly many loopholes. There is no doubt that foreign nations have an interest in altering our politics. Dictators such as Putin and Xi Jinping have made it perfectly clear that they do not believe in democracy and are willing to undermine our institutions, but our current system has built-in loopholes that allow foreign interests to channel money to our politics to shape it in their interest. At present, UK-registered companies are permitted to make donations using money raised overseas and, as has been said previously, unincorporated associations can legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible donors.

It is not just foreign donations that should cause concern; the sheer amount of money coming from a small number of extremely wealthy donors is also worrying. Of the �85 million received in private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from just 19 donors. Money helps direct the political winds, and having that amount of money come from such a small number of powerful individuals risks bringing our democratic system into disrepute.

We must introduce a cap on donations. No matter how noble the intention, no individual should be able to donate excessively, as large donations can at the very least give the impression that undue influence is being exercised over our democracy. This would not only be a positive step in cleaning up politics; it would be popular too. A recent YouGov poll found that more than two thirds of the British public support a limit on political donations. Personally, I also have concerns about the capacity of union barons to exercise what might appear to be undue influence via the vast amount of money accumulated through the political levy, which they can donate or withhold as they see fit. However, I acknowledge that the issue is complex.

We are at a crucial juncture, and it is in everyone�s interests that the Government get a proper handle on this issue. We cannot enter the next general election with so many questions left unanswered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Stella Creasy, with a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As colleagues have done already, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate.

I rise to speak as someone who dedicated almost 15 years of my working life before coming to this place to being an anti-corruption professional. It is an issue that goes to the heart of our politics, so it is somewhat disappointing to see that no Back-Bench Members from the official Opposition are present to speak in this debate. This is a vital issue on which we need to build consensus across party lines.

We have heard about low turnout at elections, which, as I think we all know, tears at the very fabric of our society, corroding democracy and the social contract between the citizen and the state. Foreign political donations might well be banned in the UK, but the current restrictions are far too easy for determined actors to circumvent. In response, we must be bold in reforming our outdated oversight of political donations.

The risk posed by foreign interference plagues all our parties. Although it is not just about one person, individual or party, I have taken the liberty of raking back through donations of years past to illustrate my argument. Indeed, just before the election, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism made what should have been impermissible donations to all six major parties. All but one�Labour�failed to correctly identify that the donation could not be accepted under current rules and return the money.

Elsewhere, the Intelligence and Security Committee�s 2020 report on Russian interference made it clear that Russian money has been used not just to buy up sprawling mansions, but to attempt to buy influence in our politics. We have seen Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Putin Minister, donating more than �2 million to the Conservative party. One might ask, what does �2 million buy? Well, in return, Lubov was awarded with a tennis match with Boris Johnson and dinner with Liz Truss and Theresa May�they picked up the bill, presumably. Let us also take the case of oligarch Alexander Temerko, who ran a Russian state arms company and has coughed up more than �700,000.

Separately, we know that the Russian state and its proxies have a well-documented history of interfering in the politics of other countries and subverting hard-won democracy, whether that is in the United States, France or Moldova, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned. We should not be so arrogant as to assume that Britain is immune to this interference.

So what can we do? First, I hope that we will see an elections Bill in the next Session, which would provide a golden opportunity to close the loopholes we have heard about today, give the regulator real powers and safeguard our democracy against foreign influence. If the Minister is looking for inspiration, she need only look to organisations such as Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International UK, as well as the Electoral Commission itself. We should include proposals around making sure that we introduce �Know your Donor rules��or KYD. Introducing such rules would require parties themselves to conduct proper checks on the sources of a donation. Where that cannot be established, the parties themselves will be required to reject that money.

Secondly, we should close the current loophole in our donation system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even turned a profit in the UK. Thirdly, we must crack down on unincorporated associations, such as the Carlton Club, which can channel donations to political candidates. Some unincorporated associations have become opaque slush funds to channel money into politics, allowing money from undisclosed foreign sources to trickle into our election campaigns.

If we fail to act and send a clear message, we undermine democracy and trust in our politics. We must not allow that to happen, and I urge the Minister to be bold.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his work in securing this important debate, and Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon.

The Liberal Democrats support this motion, which aligns with our long-standing stance on political finance reform and protecting democracy from foreign influence. We have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increase the transparency in political donations. We support strengthening the Electoral Commission by restoring its independence and increasing its enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance laws. Our democracy should never be up for sale to foreign billionaires, oligarchs, or hostile states and, as such, we support this motion, which acknowledges some of those risks.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to push for strong measures to protect our political and electoral system. We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) presented a Bill in this House to do just that. And we want to enhance regulatory powers to protect British democracy from the unprecedented threat posed by foreign interference and attacks on our democracy. Liberal Democrats will make protecting our democracy a national security priority.

We are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. Research from the Electoral Commission highlights a significant drop in the rate of public confidence in political finance transparency, falling from 37% in 2011 to about 15% today. It has also recently pointed out the threat of foreign influence on social media, highlighting the rise in misinformation and artificial intelligence deepfakes in the run-up to the general election in July last year, as well as new issues arising from the changes to fact checking on popular websites.

Public trust in our electoral process was not helped by the disastrous record of the former Conservative Government. It was not just their successive sleaze scandals, which created a crisis of democracy in this country, or their exorbitant voter ID scheme, which disproportionately disenfranchises the young and those from ethnic minority communities, but their shameful decision to weaken the independence of the Electoral Commission, and that is a decision that will go down in ignominy. If we are to strengthen our democratic safeguards, and correspondingly strengthen public trust in our democracy, that has to start with empowering the Electoral Commission. That is why we need to reverse the Conservatives� changes. We want to strengthen the Electoral Commission by repealing the Government�s power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the commission.

The former Conservative Government also failed to take the threat posed by Russia seriously. They were content to allow Russian money to flood into the UK and also to allow Russian money to flow into the coffers of their own party. And the manner in which Boris Johnson let the Russia report sit on his desk was shocking. When that report was finally published, it laid bare the extent to which Russia is a threat, including to our democratic institutions. The report said:

�The UK is clearly a target for Russia�s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts.�

It called Russian influence in the UK �the new normal� and said that the Government had underestimated the response required to the Russian threat. We continue to call for the full publication of the unredacted report.

The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. In September 2024, the heads of MI6 and the CIA jointly warned that the international order is under threat in a way not seen since the end of the cold war, accusing Russia of a

�reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe�.

I hope that the Minister shares my concern that this week United States Defence Secretary Hegseth has announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia. That is an incredibly concerning decision by the Americans, which threatens not only their cyber-security but our own. Will she update the House on what measures the UK is taking to step up our defence of our democratic institutions? We will continue to urge the Government to designate protecting our democracy as a national security priority.

Turning to foreign oligarchs, it would be remiss of me not to mention Elon Musk. Let us recall that just weeks before Musk became a US Government official, he suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow the UK Government. I hope that other parties will join the Liberal Democrats in unequivocally condemning such remarks. That incident further proves that we urgently need to tighten up political funding. That includes a cap on big donations. We must prevent foreign oligarchs from being able to interfere in our democracy.

The Liberal Democrats want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties, and we support the motion. A fair cap will ensure that politics serves our constituents and not big money. Over two thirds of the British public support a cap on political donations. We must deliver the reforms that people are demanding.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods.

The defining mission of this Government is delivering economic growth and driving up living standards. In that pursuit we are determined that nowhere is left behind, because, as every Member of this House will know, when our economy has prospered in the past, not everywhere has benefited. Over the past 14 years, decisions taken by the Conservatives have seen too many neighbourhoods fall into decline, with the most deprived areas suffering more than others.

As we deliver our mandate for change, the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods means that in 75 places across the UK, which for too long have been underestimated and undervalued, this Government will support the delivery of growth and access to opportunity and raise living standards, because when our local neighbourhoods thrive the rest of the country thrives too.

Our new plan for neighbourhoods marks the turning of the page on levelling up. This Government will not repeat the mistakes of the past: no more micromanaged pots of money or pitting communities against one another to bid for them. The truth is, for all the promises about levelling up, the Tories’ instinct was to hoard power and hold our economy back. Some 75 towns were promised funding that did not exist, with inflexible restrictions on how that money could be spent. Our plan for neighbourhoods stands in contrast with the Conservatives’ unfunded and failed approach. Unlike the Tories’ list of restrictive options for how towns could spend funding, we have doubled the policy activity that can be considered by neighbourhood boards and put communities at the heart of making these changes.

The money will be spent on a broadened set of interventions and has completely different objectives, aligned with the missions that the Prime Minister set out in our plan for change. For example, communities can now spend funding on the things that really matter to them, such as the modernisation of social housing, community-led housing, skills support, cohesion, childcare and much more. We are making good on commitments to deprived communities, giving each of the 75 places the certainty that they will receive up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade.

In many communities, work has already been undertaken, and we want to build on that rather than undo it. That is why in each area, we will support new neighbourhood boards, bringing together residents, local businesses and grassroots campaigners to draw up and implement a new vision for their area. For the first time, that will include representatives from social housing and workplace representatives and, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the representative in the devolved legislature. In consultation with its community, each board will be given the freedom to decide how to spend the £2 million a year to deliver the priorities of local people, ranging from repairs to pavements and high streets to setting up community grocers, co-operatives or even neighbourhood watches.

These new, broadened objectives will give communities the tools to make informed decisions, with a list of interventions aligned with this Government’s central missions. Those interventions have already been assessed as demonstrating good value for money, so they can be pursued without delay. We have also published a toolkit outlining the wide-ranging powers available to communities and local authorities in England, with similar powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to come following consultation with the devolved Governments. This is about giving communities autonomy and about people designing and delivering the change that they want to see.

Our new approach puts communities at the heart of delivery, which is why we have introduced three new objectives to guide the plan. First, there is the importance of building thriving places. People take immense pride in their local area, but too many of our high streets and estates have been neglected and left behind. This funding can be used to ensure that town centres and neighbourhoods better reflect the needs of their community, giving residents a say in how they are designed. It will deliver change that people can see and identify with, so that at the end of this Parliament, people can look out from their doorsteps and see a better neighbourhood. We also want the UK to be a country with world-class public services that work for everyone, which is why this objective will support services that are accessible, responsive and tailored to local need, because investing in young people’s futures and in preventive measures now will ease pressure on services over the long term.

The second aim is to build stronger communities. We want to empower neighbourhood boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division and to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood to restore a collective sense of belonging to their community. That is about understanding how division is not only an impediment to growth, but a barrier to driving up living standards.

Our third aim is to empower people to take back control. Everybody should be in the driving seat of their own life and should feel in control of their future, but that can feel like a distant prospect when people are living from payslip to payslip, stuck on a waiting list or just not listened to. It is quite right that people want to have a say over the future of their community, with enough to get by and the opportunity to make the most of their lives. We want to make sure that children have the best start in life and that adults can live the life that they want.

I will finish by talking about the inspiration for this programme, which can be traced back through six decades of community politics. We have drawn enormously from John Prescott and the noble Baroness Armstrong’s new deal for communities, which provided the stability of long-term funding backed by the support of central Government. Like them, our aspiration is to empower local people to drive the renewal of their neighbourhood and to deliver the transformational change that they want to see. This announcement also has its origins in the community development policies of Wilson and Callaghan, who drew the link between social deprivation and social division, and now we are looking to the future.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the task before us requires a decade of national renewal, and our country has all the necessary raw ingredients, untapped talent and potential across every town, city, village and estate, but we also have people without enough to get by and places and public services that have been hollowed out. Addressing that is the central driver of our plan for neighbourhoods, and that is just the start. We have already begun to deliver a real shift of power, aligned with the Deputy Prime Minister’s broader work on devolution, making work pay, fixing the foundations of local government and building decent homes, but this is also a down payment on what we know that communities can achieve. We will give people and places the resources and powers that they need to succeed.

Today’s announcement is a response to anyone in these 75 places who wants to see change. It sends a message that the full force of Government will be there to help them to deliver it, and that is why I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I believe that the best value for money is when communities have the tools and resources to shape place themselves, according to their criteria, rather than mine. That is how we drive change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for the statement. A number of Members have been on councils, and some of us still serve on them. If we are all honest, the unfortunate reality is that the competitive tendering process did pit some councils against each other, including deprived councils. It is right that we move away from that, and away from the sticking-plaster politics that we have seen over the past few years.

I want to press the Minister to give us a bit more of an understanding of how the neighbourhood boards will be set up and how they will function. Will there be a clear recruitment process to get the local buy-in that is critical? As the Minister said, it is important that we bring communities along with us. If there is conflict between local authorities and the boards—for example, over a regeneration plan—will one have the power to veto the other, and will the Department have oversight, so that it can intervene, should there be serious concerns about interventions and operation?

The Minister said that it was important for communities to have a say in their future, so is the Department looking at the community right to buy? I declare my interest as a Labour and Co-operative MP. Through the community right to buy, we have seen local pubs, libraries, leisure centres and so much more saved. When can we expect to see that new light, and when will that legislation come forward?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions. I agree with what she said about competitive tendering; the quid pro quo is that the Government of the day have to be very clear about how allocations are made. My commitment is that we will always be very transparent about how the decisions are made, and I know that the Select Committee will take a strong interest in that.

Turning to the establishment of boards, I suspect that one of the themes of discussion over the next few minutes will be our not wanting to hold back areas that are making great progress. Areas with established boards may take advantage of the opportunity to add more people to those boards, and may move on at pace, while other areas may want to treat this moment as a chance to reboot their board. Either way, the basic principle is that the local authority will be the ring-holder, supported by the local Member of Parliament, but once that board has got going, we expect it to be in leadership. We do not want boards to have significant tensions with their councils, and we would expect any tensions to be resolved in the usual way, but those boards will have the power to get on with the job.

The community right to buy was a component of the White Paper. We are looking forward to delivering the community right to buy, because we know that it would be greatly valued, whether we are talking about buying pubs or other buildings in communities. We are very keen on that, and as a fellow Labour and Co-op MP, I am particularly keen on it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome this plan to work with communities to improve local amenities and engagement in the process. We also welcome the move away from local council areas bidding against each other, and towards a more objective approach, based, for example, on indices of multiple deprivation. In our opinion and my opinion, the previous system divisively pitted one area against another in a way that did damage to more areas than it helped.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to allowing communities to take action to improve their area. Given sufficient powers and resources, local authorities can play a major role in responding to climate and nature emergencies, whether through the insulation of homes, enhancing green spaces or improving air quality. However, the Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis. As a result, councils have gone bankrupt around the country, and many are feeling the strain of cuts to public services and a lack of investment in community assets.

No community can flourish without proper powers and resources, so we welcome the plan’s commitment to ensuring that new neighbourhood boards work with local authorities to implement new funding. However, we urge the Government to confirm that local authorities will be funded and resourced substantially to take on this additional workload.

The financial burden on councils has forced many to make impossible choices on funding. In my council of Somerset, for example, nearly 70% of council tax receipts go on care for vulnerable adults and children, which many believe should be a national responsibility. Until we have a national solution to the care crisis, councils will continue to be held back from reaching their full potential. We welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in community-led improvement.

We also welcome the new neighbourhood boards, which should provide community engagement throughout the process. We urge the Government to reconsider their decision to remove district council-level scrutiny from the planning process. Where Whitehall takes power and decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it also takes decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic and will ultimately slow up the process of getting the homes that we need. We also call on the Government to confirm that nature and climate specialists will be included on the neighbourhood boards. Finally, can I ask the Minister—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that there is a time limit. I will give him one more sentence.

[Gideon Amos]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State review the list of 75 towns, so that others can be included in future? Finally, will the Government consider rolling the plans into neighbourhood plans, so that they are given more statutory effect when planning decisions are made?

Coalfield Communities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. This is a very well-subscribed debate, so there will be an immediate time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench contributions. That, of course, does not apply to the mover of the debate, but I hope he bears that comment in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. After the next speaker, the time limit on speeches will be reduced to four minutes.

Local Government Finance

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to the motions relating to local government finance, which will be debated together.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2025–26 (HC 623), which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on council tax increases:

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2025–26 (HC 624), which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

[Jim McMahon]

The Deputy Prime Minister and I, like many others in this House, have local government in our blood—we are proud public servants. We know what a difference the sector makes every day to millions of people across this country, and how much stronger local government, working in genuine partnership with central Government, can achieve to change lives. I thank the millions of dedicated public servants who work in and for the sector for all their efforts to deliver more than 800 services that local people rely on.

We know it has been a difficult few years, but this statement is an important step towards rebuilding the foundations of local government, ready to meet the scale of the challenge ahead so that we can rebuild our country together as part of our plan for change. That is why I take the responsibility of leading the Government’s work to rebuild the sector with the seriousness and urgency that is, quite frankly, long overdue.

Today, I will set out funding for local authorities in England for the coming year through the final local government finance settlement. Before I do, I want to say that the Government are grateful to all those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement, which attracted 227 responses, including more than 45 from Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

On the point about inner and outer London, the problem is that outer-London boroughs are now seeing inner-London problems, the funding system is archaic and the formula is based on outdated deprivation statistics, using household numbers rather than population. This unfairly impacts boroughs such as Redbridge, which covers my constituency. It is home to many multi-generational families living under one roof—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We simply cannot have interventions like this. They need to be spontaneous; they should not be read out from pre-prepared scripts.

[Jas Athwal]

Can I just make this point?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Member has already had long enough.

[Jim McMahon]

In a way, there is commonality across the House in recognising that particular problems really ought to be taken into account when it comes to local government funding, and if it is got right—our intention is to get it right—it will take into account up-to-date population and deprivation statistics. It should take into account the ability of a local authority to raise tax locally through council tax, or through business rates or fees and charges. It should take into account the cost of delivering services, whether that is about the rental costs of acquiring a space to operate from or even the cost of delivering services in areas such as rural or coastal communities, where there are particular issues. The formula should take that into account, so let’s work through that.

We are responding to the pressures, which is why we are making £3.7 billion of extra funding available for social care authorities. That includes an uplift of £880 million in the social care grant, which includes an additional £20 million that I have confirmed today for the new children’s social care prevention grant, taking the total for that grant to £270 million. That paves the way for the national roll-out of transformed family help and child protection services. We have doubled settlement investment in preventive children’s social care to £500 million next year. If we do not reform the system and focus on prevention, we will continue to pay more and more, too often for worsening outcomes.

This is happening alongside the Education Secretary’s work to take forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will crack down on profiteering and improve child protection—something that the Tories failed to do, at a very dear cost to taxpayers, who were left to pick up the bill. Again, the severe pressures on SEND services came across loud and clear during the consultation. As we have announced, we are boosting SEND provision and alternative provision by an extra £1 billion to start to return the system to financial sustainability and to improve outcomes for young people. We are aware of the impact that dedicated schools grant deficits are having on council finances, which is why we are committed to working with councils, parents, teachers and schools to transform SEND provision and the life chances of the children who need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We all have different views on this matter. Many parts of my constituency are not wealthy and have deprivation that is not sufficiently catered for by some of the formulas. That is what we are concerned about. We are keen to see fairness across the board, so we will scrutinise Labour’s plans very carefully on that basis.

The Labour Budget promised a big increase in council spending and the return of the sector to sustainability through a comprehensive set of measures to support local authorities in England. As I said, the Government also promised multi-year settlements, and we support those intentions. However, most of the money provided to local councils under the settlement will be through council tax rises for working people. A number of the rises breach the 5% referendum limit principle. Referendums on council tax rises of up to 9.9% have been waived by the Secretary of State, so local people cannot have a say on these dramatic increases. That means that local residents in the Windsor and Maidenhead borough, Birmingham, Bradford and Newham all face increases of more than 5%. Birmingham is notable due to the mess that Labour made there, which Labour is now forcing residents to pay for, rather than taking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats are also raising council tax without allowing Windsor and Maidenhead borough and Somerset residents a say on how they feel about the increases.

Council tax rises make up the bulk of the settlement, and rather than Labour delivering on its claims that it would fairly fund local government, it is pushing the burden on to taxpayers. The Government have also increased that burden with their jobs tax, which will negatively increase costs on local government finance. Although they have provided £515 million to cover the direct costs of employer’s NI, the Local Government Association has estimated that the national insurance contribution hike will cost another £1.13 billion for increases being forced upon providers of outsourced services.

The costs of those outsourced services will inevitably increase, but the Government are providing no money to cover that. Councils and residents will have to pick up the bill. Council tax receipts in 2025-26 are forecast to be in the order of £50 billion, yet Labour’s nonsensical Chagos islands deal is rumoured to cost up to £18 billion. That is equivalent to a one-off £820 deduction from a typical council tax bill. Alternatively, it could have paid for a council tax freeze for the whole of this Parliament. As with all things, Labour is wasting taxpayers’ money rather than giving them a tax cut.

The settlement will make it more difficult for councils to deliver on residents’ priorities, be they social care or potholes, which I note Conservative councils have a better record of filling in. It is an undeniable fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats deliver worse services and charge more. From Whitehall to town hall, under Labour, people pay more and get less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome some aspects of what the Minister is proposing. It is important to not always fire political shots at each other and to look for common ground and give credit where it is due. I have said this to him before, but I really welcome the moves that the Government are making towards multi-year funding settlements. It is so important to move away from the hand-to-mouth, year-to-year, jam-jar approach to funding—particularly capital funding. That ridiculous competition between local authorities over an ever-decreasing pot of funding has been so damaging, so those moves really are things to welcome.

But—there are quite a few buts about the local government finance settlement, but I will focus on just three. I represent the wonderful North Herefordshire constituency. Herefordshire council has received a settlement that is well below the national average, well below the average for comparator councils, and well below what is needed to provide the services that residents need and deserve. An interesting element of the debate has been some Members seeking to pose a binary conflict between rural and urban authorities. I want to get away from that—it is really unhelpful—but it is important to recognise there is serious deprivation in rural areas, not just in income but in access to services.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked eloquently about the fact that sparse populations, long distances and poor transport networks all hugely increase the cost of delivering services such as social care or home-to-school transport. That is the impact of geography, but demography is also an issue. Herefordshire has 50% more over-65s than the national average, which has a knock-on impact on the cost to local government of delivering crucial services.

It is absolutely crystal clear that although the Government have taken away the rural services delivery grant, which they perhaps viewed as yet another jam jar, they have not replaced it in the new formula with a fair allocation of funding on the basis of rurality. I beg the Minister to revisit that issue when he comes up with the multi-year funding settlement. Otherwise, the serious problem of rural areas having their specific elements of deprivation under-recognised in the funding formula will build up so many other problems into the future. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister is nodding. I thank him for that and warmly invite him to Herefordshire so that we can show him, face to face and on the ground, the challenge of providing those services. That was “but” No. 1, regarding rurality.

“But” No. 2, which relates to the impact of the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, has been referenced previously in this debate. I appreciate the nuance with which the Minister answered questions on this issue earlier, and his recognition that it is a really serious issue and that the funding settlement does not fully acknowledge it, particularly the on-costs, because so much of what local authorities do is done not just through the staff they employ themselves, but through commissioned services. I am sure that Members across the House have been inundated with correspondence from charities and businesses working in sectors such as the care sector that are desperately worried about the effect of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions on their ability to provide those crucial services—so often commissioned by local authorities—to local people. When the Minister is doing the multi-year funding formula in future years, will he please address that issue and ensure that those costs are fully integrated into the calculation?

My third “but” was also touched on earlier. The Minister expressed doubt about whether cross-party agreement could be reached on this matter, but there seems to be quite a degree of consensus across this House that council tax is a broken tax—it is a broken funding system. It is outdated, regressive, unfair, and way overdue a review. We are charging people based on an assessment of property rates that were set 35 years ago and have never been updated. Council tax is crying out for a fundamental review, so will the Minister please commit to undertaking that review, working across parties and across the House to find a much fairer and more sustainable long-term approach to raising local funding?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that was not a point of order. It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she wishes to take an intervention. I am sure she is coming to her closing remarks.

[Rushanara Ali]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Once again, I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions, even if we do not always agree. The point is that we can all agree that there is much work that needs to be done.