Point of Order

David Simmonds 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.

Political Finance Rules

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I will start with a confession: I am one of the readers of The Guardian on the Conservative Benches, and I pay tribute to the helpful article it published today with the latest update of what has been happening in the world of political donations. It illustrates that, despite the increase in spending limits set out in the previous Parliament, the spend at the last general election reduced as political parties on all sides reined in their spending.

The article also sets out in some detail the fundraising efforts of the parties in the Chamber and helps to put some of the figures quoted in public debates into context. While there may be those promising to donate $100 million to British political parties, the party in question managed to raise �280,000 over that quarter, which is approximately an eighth of the funds raised by my party and a bit less than a quarter of the funds raised by the Labour party over the same period. As a dedicated fan of Private Eye, it is clear to me that the transparency brought by the reporting of these donations is enormously helpful; indeed, it has led to many of the contributions to the debate.

On the whole, the debate has been positive, by and large avoiding much of the casting of aspersions we often see and focusing on the practicalities. I have some brief points to make and then some questions to put to the Minister that are very much about the practicalities of taking forward the work that is under way.

First, there is the need to respond as political parties and a state to the evolving roster of challenges that we face. We know that practices are being imported from the United States, such as the funding of issue-based campaigns, which have enormous political impact, including on the election of politicians, but are not donations to specific political parties. The Opposition would clearly be keen to work with the Government to ensure that donations for a political purpose�without being to a political party�are open to the appropriate level of scrutiny.

A loophole has recently been created by the decision of Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland to extend the franchise to a greater proportion of foreign citizens, allowing them to vote in British elections, because the principle that underpins reporting is that people can donate to a political party only in an election where they are also able to vote. The fact that two areas of our country have different rules on that enables such citizens to donate to those parties, because the political parties there operate nationally. That is a loophole and an issue that I hope the Government will be addressing.

Political finance is seen not just in the form of donation to political parties but in the lobbying, to which a number of hon. Members referred, the trips and the research input. In the last Parliament, there was the lobbying scandal that revolved around a Chinese spy donating about �700,000 to Labour party organisations. That is reflected in the challenge that has come from Opposition Members to the Government�s position on the Chinese embassy. While the Government may feel that it is a legitimate foreign policy objective to cosy up to China, many members across parties express the view that the influence of China in British politics is a significant concern.

Let me put some questions to the Minister. First, why have the Government chosen to abandon the commitment made by Parliament and the last Government in the National Security Act 2023 to enhance the powers so that regulators, law enforcement and security services could share information with political parties? That process would have specifically helped to avoid the kind of situation that occurred with Labour�s Chinese spy problem, by enabling parties to be more informed about who the individuals are who are coming forward.

Will the Government take steps to close the loophole created by the Labour Welsh Government and the SNP Scottish Government that, for the first time, allowed Russian, Chinese and Iranian citizens resident in those countries to donate to UK-wide politicians and political parties? Why has the Minister chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? While we recognise that the Government are pursuing greater trade with China, which is a legitimate political expectation, is that not a green light to the Chinese Communist party to enhance the degree of influence it seeks to transact in British politics?

Does the Minister and do the Government accept that UK politicians themselves are low risk? It is important that we are here having this debate and seeking the highest possible standards. In the past, we saw gold-plating, with the politically exposed persons rules that saw parliamentarians on all sides of the Chamber being deprived of access to basic financial services. Does the Minister believe that we need to remove the risk of genuine, legitimate UK politicians being debanked because of their political views?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the context of the need to maintain consensus, why are the Government failing to consult the political parties on their plans for changes to political finance law, contrary to the precedent set by past Administrations of all parties? Does the Minister accept the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally seek to impose measures affecting political finance to their own partisan advantage? Will she undertake that there will be discussions with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and that there will be formal consultation with the parties? Will there be discussions through the so-called usual channels or on Privy Council terms? That way, we can ensure that in the context of electoral law that is complex�and for good reason: to protect the integrity of our democracy�we can retain cross-party confidence that those rules are not being used by the Government in pursuit of their own political advantage.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Much in this statement builds on the work of the previous Government, and we share the new Government’s ambitions for the growth and renewal of our neighbourhoods and high streets, which are so fundamental to our constituents’ quality of life. As the Minister knows, there is a history behind this statement that links back to the desire of all our constituents to have a proper say in the development of their home area. In a country that is as grossly centralised, by democratic standards, as the UK, that local voice is vital.

EU cohesion funds, which were the predecessor of the UK shared prosperity fund, were directly accountable to both the UK Government and local representatives. In the short timeframe in which the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was in effect, it sought to bring to bear a wide variety of national resources on exactly the challenges that the Minister referred to in his statement. There was a £2.6 billion fund allocated for regeneration and communities; the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which was specifically designed to support treasured assets such as pubs and theatres, where there was strong community support; and the £1.5 billion long-term plan for tax. We know that local leaders welcomed that investment, and many Members across the House spoke very warmly of the benefits to their constituents, so the challenge to the Government today is to set out how this very small and limited project sits against that much broader levelling-up ambition and, in particular, where it sits against the £3.6 billion towns fund set out under the previous Government.

The House will acknowledge that this statement comes at a time when this Government’s financial decisions are bearing down very heavily on our communities. The massive rise in national insurance contributions, the increases in business rates on pubs, retail businesses and hospitality, the changes to business property relief and the multibillion-pound funding gap that opened up in council budgets as a result of the Government’s Budget last October all weigh very heavily in the balance against this modest announcement. That leaves aside the impact of the loss of things such as the rural services grant and the community ownership fund, which were specifically targeted at delivering support to communities that needed it.

While we welcome this rebadging and rehashing of a scheme that we progressed when we were in office and its allocation to largely the same list of recipients, we have some questions to put to the Minister. The first is about the accountability of the proposed neighbourhood boards. It is a significant concern that the Minister finds time to say that the boards will include trade union representatives, but not to mention the democratically elected representatives of those local communities—a trend that sits alongside the changes in the proposed planning White Paper. Local democracy is vital if these boards are to work effectively.

The second question is about the lack of a clear purpose for these resources. While it sounds like a positive thing to broaden the range of areas in which they can be spent, it is a serious concern that the Government again choose refurbishment and modernisation of social housing, which is already allocated for in other areas of local government funding. It begs the question of whether these funds will, in fact, go towards making up shortfalls that the Budget created in other areas of Government spending.

Finally, there is real concern that broadening the criteria, and choosing to use generalised national statistics rather than local understanding of need to decide how to allocate funding, will mean that the resource is allocated in a way that simply does not reflect needs and local circumstances. A bidding process allows local authorities—which lead and represent their areas, and can identify particular needs—to come forward to Government and present a plan. The process of allocation that is being suggested creates a serious risk that those who can do the most to regenerate and benefit our high streets and communities will lose out in favour of those who are simply able to meet the criteria of Whitehall box-ticking.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for those questions. He is right to say that this plan builds on the previous long-term plan for towns commitment, which is why we thought it prudent to retain the same recipient areas. That promise has been made, and it should be kept. However, when I entered the Department on my first day in government, and talked to civil servants, it was astonishing to find out that the programme—a £1.5 billion commitment made by the previous Government—was unfunded. It was funded through a reserve that had been spent three times over. That is simply no way to run a country. I am very pleased that we have been able to keep that commitment to those communities, because goodness knows there would have been disappointment had we not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the plan’s place in the wider environment. Of course, we committed to the transition year of shared prosperity funding in the Budget. We are now in a spending review period, and as I said in my statement, we are committed to getting communities the tools and resources that they need in order to shape place.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions on accountability, of course local councillors are still involved. We are talking about changes to broaden neighbourhood boards. We want local councillors to be involved; we would like local Members of Parliament to be involved; and in the areas where they exist, we would like devolved representatives to be involved. However, we think that the voices of people who work in the communities are also valuable, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a lack of clear purpose. I think this is where we are in different spaces, because I believe in freedom to make decisions locally. I believe that expertise is held locally; the wisdom about communities across this country is held by the local community, rather than the Minister. That might perhaps be revelatory for a Minister to say. I believe that changing a community—whether through what we call local growth, levelling up, or any of the other things that it has been called over the past 60 years—is an inside job, best done by local communities, and that my role as Minister and our role as Government is to get communities the tools and resources that they need. We differ on that point.

Even the previous Government moved away from their affection for the bidding process by the end of the last Parliament. They understood that it did not work—that a debilitating beauty parade that pits communities against each other was not a very good way of getting money to those communities. However, another point of difference is that I believe in a longer-term allocative settlement that is more flexible and guided by people locally, whereas the Opposition believe in shorter-term bidding and central prescription.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right—it was his Government who did not do enough in this area. We have said that we will strengthen section 106 planning obligations, and we have also set up a unit within my Department to ensure that we hold developers to account and work across Government to ensure that infrastructure is built.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Alex Norris]

They will be all those things; I believe that is a shared goal. For clarity, we are taking forward the recommendations. As we stated last week, we do not think that the testing houses ought to be under the purview of a single construction regulator, as that would mean that the regulator would essentially mark its own homework if there was a problem. I know Opposition Members have a problem with this, and I am more than happy to speak about it in greater detail.

We are looking very closely at European standards, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the “Construction Products Reform” Green Paper. Alignment with those European standards is probably a desirable goal, but that is subject to the ongoing consultation. We are very clear that the current regime does not cover enough construction products. There is not enough transparency or accountability when things go wrong. Our desire, as has been expressed from the Dispatch Box, is for a very high standards regime, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in service of that shared goal.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, to discuss a matter that members of the Committee clearly find riveting.

The Minister referred to fixing foundations, so it is important for the Committee to note that the decision that we are asked to take this evening reflects the work and policy of the previous Government, introduced in 2013-14, which set a direction of travel on business rates whereby a greater proportion of the growth created at local authority level would be retained locally. It is a principle on which there has been a high degree of cross-party agreement for many years that those places that put the work in and see the local impact of growth should also benefit from that financially. Although I think we would all accept that it was a work in progress at the time of the last general election, I am pleased that the Government are at least continuing to operate the same system. I hope the Minister will consider how the principles that underlie this decision making can be rolled out further in the future.

Essentially, business rates retention is about saying to local authorities that, rather than acting purely as collections authorities for central Government, they main retain locally a proportion of the money that they collect through the non-domestic rates process. It is part of an infrastructure that includes the pooling arrangements introduced under the previous Government, which were designed to ensure that that benefit was not seen solely by an individual local authority but, because significant business growth often has a wider regional impact, was able to be shared across groups of local authorities. In London, for example, there are a number of pooling arrangements whereby local authorities share some of the proceeds across a wider area.

The Minister set out the impact and purpose of the arrangements for top-up and tariff authorities, but I have two questions for him to consider. First, although the change to the figure is very small, the regulations amend a previous set of measures that were introduced in a round of local government reorganisation that, following the abolition of Northamptonshire county council and its constituent districts, introduced the new North Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire local authorities. It would be helpful to know that, although the impact in this case is small, the Government will give a good deal of consideration to ensuring that, as the process of local government reorganisation that has been outlined by the Minister and his colleagues takes effect, all the possible calculations and impacts have been fully considered. We know from previous rounds of local government organisation—not just the one that is relevant here—that such changes can have a significant impact on the administration of a local authority subsequent to elections.

The second question I would like the Minister briefly to address is this. We understand from the explanatory memorandum that the impact of these changes on the budgets of individual local authorities is negligible. However, it is noteworthy that most local authorities will have completed their budget-setting process in the past few weeks. Having, like the Minister, served many years in local government, I would be remiss if I did not flag that although the regulations will take effect immediately once they are passed—in effect, they come into effect tomorrow—it is good practice to ensure that local authorities have all the information before them when they make a decision.

Business rates variations can have a significant impact on local authorities, especially if there are changes to pooling, or if a local authority finds itself switched from a top-up to a tariff authority or the other way round. All those things would normally be taken into account in the budget-setting process, of which the non-domestic rates are, by statute, a part. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could assure the Committee that the Department will work to ensure that, where instruments will have an impact, as these regulations do, decisions are taken so that they can legally form part of the council’s budget fixing, rather than being passed by Parliament—although it is legal for it to do so—after the budgetary decisions on which they have a bearing have already been taken.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his typically constructive response. On the matter of structural reform, there is agreement that it is far better that local government has long-term security and stability, and that, as much as possible, we tie down tax that is raised at a local level with the local accountability that comes with it. That is as important for council tax payers as it is for the local business community.

We also recognise that the groundwork that was done on devolution has the business rates retention scheme hardwired into it. The financial construct of many devolution agreements was based in large part on the business rates retention scheme being able to better reflect that, when areas come together and organise for growth, they ought to benefit from the proceeds of that growth. The business rates retention system has been built up over a period of time, and I would say it has maintained cross-party support on that basis.

As I said, these are generally very technical measures, but I completely take the point that local authorities need notice to be able to prepare. Most local authorities will be preparing on the basis of the information that has come in, and the measures will not be a surprise to them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that officials have been in regular contact with North Northamptonshire council to let the local authority know that the adjustment is coming, so that it can prepare the ground. I hope that that gives him comfort.

On the hon. Gentleman’s points about local government reorganisation, we are now at a point where the statutory invitations have been sent out to the remaining 21 counties. Interest has been high, and we expect all—or perhaps the vast majority—to submit some kind of proposal about that process. We fully accept that that will require a significant amount of resourcing, from both the Department and local government itself, and we also recognise that in bringing together a range of different funding streams for councils at different layers of government and different geographies around the country, we will have to work to ensure that the alignment of assets, liabilities, revenue and so on is taken into account. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that officials are working on that.

It would be naive of me to say that I can absolutely guarantee that there will never be an error—the fact that we are here to reconcile an error shows that errors sometimes happen in very complex calculations—but I can say that we are doing all we can to ensure that we work that through that system. If the hon. Gentleman would find it useful, I would be happy to arrange a technical briefing with officials about how we are gearing up for that.

[David Simmonds]

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

[Jim McMahon]

I share the shadow Minister’s observation about the complexity of the system; it only takes a small part of it to throw quite wild numbers out in different parts of the country, because there is a lot of commonality in local government but different types of councils are affected very differently by different elements of public service pressures. County councils, in particular, are affected far more on home-to-school transport, for instance, than those in more urban areas. I completely understand that point.

I will say that we are eyes wide open as to the amount of change that is going through the system. Just on business rates, we have the business rates reset, the business rates relief work being done in terms of retail, hospitality and leisure, and the revaluation that is taking place at the same time. We then have a number of devolution agreements coming, and I am sure that retention will form part of those discussions and negotiations. On top of that, we have the more fundamental review of local government finance, where the funding formula is being looked at again.

There is quite a lot of change in the system, and I am very alive to the need to ensure both that the data is accurate and up to date and that we take local government expenditure in the round, to make sure that, in the end, every council has the resources needed, on a fair basis, to deliver decent public services. We are on with the political work, in terms of the outcome, but also the technical work, in terms of the process, to make sure that it is robust.

In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are required to make sure that the business rates retention system operates as it should. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting them.

Question put and agreed to.

High Street Rental Auctions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Vickers, and to have been present for this wide-ranging debate. I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) will be pleased: anyone watching this debate, and seeing so many of our colleagues over in the main Chamber debating issues around family businesses, will welcome the focus that this debate brings to our high streets, that large and important part of our economy.

We are debating these issues at a time when, based on the figures across the country, growth is down, jobs, vacancies and hiring are down, investment by businesses in the UK is down and inflation is up. While there is always a political debate to be had about the causes behind those factors, it is clear that last October’s Budget had a significant impact. It is important to consider how measures such as the one at the anchor of this debate, high street rental auctions, can be used to address those challenges by local and regional authorities and by the new mayors that the Government are proposing to bring in across the country.

Our high streets have faced many interrelated pressures in recent years. Members have referred to the impact of online shopping on consumer habits and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. When our high streets and retail were to some extent closed, or significantly restricted, it drove a rapid change in consumer behaviour that we see reflected in patterns of business investment across the country. All those issues have created a challenge for our local businesses in making sure both that their prices remain competitive and that they can draw in both the staff and the customers they require.

Members have also referred to the impact of out-of-town shopping centres. Although many of our high streets and local business communities have been able to change and adapt, others have found it an ongoing challenge. At the tail end of the last century, I worked in a local bank on the village high street in Pinner in my constituency. That bank is no longer there—only the Nationwide remains as a financial provider on that high street—but there are no vacant units today because other forms of business have opened up, principally in hospitality. That has been a significant change in the way that high street operates. It is a great pleasure to represent a constituency with seven local high streets; I regularly host surgeries in those hospitality businesses as an opportunity to find out what is going on, and I know that many other Members do the same.

The pressures that Members have described in this debate can be seen quite starkly in the figures. In the period between March 2020 and March 2022, we saw a loss of a net total of 9,300 retail units across the country. Some were converted into residential accommodation. Government policy, over many years and from all parties, has recognised the demand for housing and the changing nature of the high street, and that has enabled the conversion of those properties, where appropriate, to provide much-needed homes. Often, because of the nature of those conversions, they have provided additional customers for the remaining premises on the high streets. However, at the same time we have seen the loss of many cherished local businesses such as those Members have spoken of, and others, particularly independent retailers, continue to struggle.

The high street rental auction policy was introduced under the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It was one of several measures taken by that Government, and it granted local authorities for the first time a power through a new initiative designed to bring new life to persistently vacant properties. When retail units are persistently empty, sometimes there are problems with absentee landlords and it can be enormously difficult to force the issue and bring the units back into use. Rental auctions are a significant new idea, alongside the investments through the future high streets fund and other schemes designed to ensure that high streets across the country remain sustainable.

There will be much debate about the impact that that policy has had, especially given the changing habits of our constituents. However, when we look at the feedback from independent organisations in particular, there is a great deal of concern that, even set alongside the benefits that this policy could bring, the overall business environment is having a significant negative impact both on the viability of high street businesses and business in general, and on retail in particular.

In recent comments, the British Retail Consortium comments said that the Government’s measure to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions—that single policy alone—is likely to lead to a net loss of 160,000 jobs over the next two years, in particular because of its impact on those large numbers of people who are in lower-paid, but flexible and part-time work. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that they remain extremely concerned about that bigger issue. There is also concern in respect of the changes being introduced to non-domestic rates—business rates—an assessment that has been shared by a very wide group of professionals.

The Altus Group, a real estate company, released some research recently estimating that the big reduction in business rates discounts for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, which go from 75% to 40% in the next financial year, will result in a 140% increase in business rates bills at individual business level for around a quarter of a million high street premises in England. To put that into real money, an average shop currently paying £3,589 in business rates will see that bill rise to £8,613 from next April. Pubs, which many Members have cited in debates here and elsewhere, would see a typical bill rising from £3,938 to £9,451 a year. All these things represent significant increases in costs imposed on local businesses.

We recognise in particular the shift under way in how larger high street premises will be treated. I know some of those changes in business rates have been described as an Amazon tax, but it is clear that they will have a particular impact on places such as larger supermarkets in town centre locations, which often provide the parking and the anchor store that brings people into our towns. The Conservatives therefore remain extremely concerned at the impact that that has.

I am sure the Government will challenge us and say, “Well, what is your policy?” Clearly, we are in Opposition these days, and we did not have the opportunity to set out in Government a Budget to address this wider range of issues, but we know that preserving that strong growth and that steady and high rate of employment—the 4 million more people in work when we left office, and the halving of youth unemployment—was down to our sustained focus on the economy to sustain the buoyant high streets and local employment, the growth and the living standards that we all expect.

In conclusion, while this policy is important, we need to continue to see it as part of a package of vital measures that are there to sustain not just our high streets, but the commercial life of our nation. It is usually the voice of very big business that is heard in Parliament—a very large commercial concern with a public affairs team will find it very easy to make Parliamentarians pay attention to what it says—but around 70% of people employed in this country work in an enterprise with less than five staff in total.

The vast majority of our constituents, the vast majority of people who work in our country, are in shops and small enterprises. We need to make sure that, while their collective voice can be difficult to translate, their interests are at the heart of our thinking and the role that those small businesses play is visible. Our neighbourhood is vital to our quality of life. There is a reason why post-war planners, setting out to build large new areas of social housing, chose to make sure that there were retail units and shop fronts on those sites, so that people had ready access to the sense of community that they support.

We need to make sure that that is sustained, but sustained in the context of a world that is changing. As part of a Government and as politicians, we cannot second-guess or indeed directly change consumer behaviour through intervention, but we can support a wide range of businesses to ensure that we serve the widest possible interests of our community. For example, the shift to supermarket retail has helped to ensure that the UK has the second most affordable food, compared with household budgets, in the world. The shifting nature of our high streets means that, while there is less retail, there is more affordable hospitality and more of the good-quality, flexible and well-paid jobs that go with it.

Demographic change is also significant. As the ageing population of our country looks for more hospitality close to home, it creates an opportunity for those businesses. We have seen retail units implementing schemes such as soft play, as larger numbers of children in local communities drive the changing face of local businesses and create new opportunities, benefiting those children socially and benefiting local employment.

But I finish where I started. We are about to embark on a massive process of top-down local government reorganisation. We need to make sure that throughout all that turmoil, with policies such as high street rental auctions, what has been done for the high streets fund and the changes in business rates, we do not lose sight of how important our high streets and small businesses are. The consequences of the Government’s Budget can already be seen not just in business confidence and sentiment, but in the reducing numbers of jobs and vacancies, in falling investment and in rising inflation.

The Government have an opportunity to listen not only to the Opposition, but to professionals and business owners, who are politically neutral but have the interests of businesses in these communities at heart. The Government have the chance to make changes in the wider interests of our nation.

Coalfield Communities

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate. The House will know that Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is not a coalfields constituency. Our mining tradition is far older. It goes back to the days of chalk. Its legacy today is seen in the impact of sinkholes in the local area.

Today’s debate is very much focused on the lasting legacy and impact of an era when coal was king. Although I do not represent a coalfields constituency, I certainly grew up in one. The old men with the blue scars and the hacking coughs from emphysema—or pneumoconiosis, as we now know it to be—were the background to my childhood. I feel lucky that I had a great-grandfather who, unlike many miners, lived a very long life. He started working in a pit at Cwmcarn at the age of 12 and carried on to the age of 70. He shared the impact of things such as the Universal Colliery disaster in Senghenydd on his life and the community in which he lived and grew up, and of seeing his brother die after being buried in a rockfall.

Although the industry created the enormous economic opportunities that have been described by many Members, we know that the environment was very harsh and difficult, and as we recognise in our many debates about climate change and the transition to net zero, it created a product that, although valuable and effective at generating energy, is enormously polluting.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. We have just had a very good debate, but it must be a considerable embarrassment to him that not a single Member of His Majesty’s Opposition thought that it was worthwhile attending to make a substantive speech. I appreciate that he is not a coalfield MP, and I appreciate that not many Conservative Members are, but does he not think that, if the Conservatives are serious about being ready to represent the whole country again, we should be hearing from some of their MPs in a debate such as this?

[David Simmonds]

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

[Adam Jogee]

I gently say to the shadow Minister that any party that seeks to lead our United Kingdom should be interested in, and committed to, issues that affect people across the UK. Irrespective of whether Members have particular challenges in their constituencies, more of the shadow Minister’s colleagues should have been here.

[David Simmonds]

I am sure the Government will wish to press that point.

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

[Grahame Morris]

I must take issue with that. I served a number of years on Easington district council, and we were twinned with a similar mining area in North Rhine- Westphalia in Germany. When the Carl Alexander mine near Baesweiler closed, the local authority and the miners were given two years’ notice, grants were made available through the federal, local and national Government to retain the miners, and new industrial estates were built. It is interesting to compare that with what happened when our pits closed in Easington, Murton, South Hetton, Horden and Blackhall—we found out on the Friday that the pit was closing on the Monday, and thousands of men lost their jobs.

[David Simmonds]

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

[Luke Akehurst]

If we could move forward from the events of the 1980s, in the last Parliament, the Conservative Benches were full of Members representing former mining constituencies, including three of the constituencies in County Durham. Perhaps the reason those Members were not returned at the last general election was that Government’s sorry failure to deliver the levelling up they promised. Can the shadow Minister in any way defend the failure to economically regenerate mining areas that in 2019 had Conservative MPs for the first time?

[David Simmonds]

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

[Rachel Taylor]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Simmonds]

I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Rachel Taylor]

An observation I have made as I have listened to the hon. Gentleman is that not one single Member of his party stood up for the thousands of pensioners who were not given the justice they deserve in the mineworkers pension scheme or the BCSSS. His party claims to stand up for pensioners, and yet it did nothing and said nothing for those mining pensioners who deserved a better deal.

[David Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard for debates on these matters in previous Parliaments, she will find those points being raised by Members from across the House—rightly so—with a view to moving the debate on to the decisions that have been made today.

The Clapham review of the effectiveness of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was a key opportunity to consider the role that local government in particular plays in the regeneration of our coalfields. Clearly, that challenge exists at a number of levels. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) referenced the large number of spoil heaps—some of which I can see from the garden of my parents’ house. A number of local authorities—and Governments, through local authorities —have sought to address that through planting and remediation to stabilise their spoil tips, for example, but there is still a job to do. As the years go by and the industries that produce those spoil tips become historical, we know that we must effectively address the risks that they continue to pose.

To conclude my remarks, I turn to the importance of learning from the work that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust undertook and from the points that many Members of all parties have made in debates about these issues over many years. We know that we are about to embark on a process. The UK has made progress in the decarbonisation of our economy since the early 1990s, when, as a leading nation, we began the major shift away from coal. In the 1950s, coal produced most of our energy; today, it contributes to none—our last coal-fired power station recently closed.

The Trades Union Congress recently passed a motion highlighting that 30,000 jobs were at risk in the oil and gas industry. We talk about the just transition—Labour Members are, in my view, justified in raising the problems that process has created—but we must lay the groundwork for it. I remember interventions during the miners’ strike, such as the distribution at my school of the EEC butter mountain. That is not an example of an effective economic intervention to address the needs of people in difficulty. If we are to have a just transition away from fossil fuels in the future, we must learn from the past mistakes of all Governments in respect of coalfields, and incorporate the lessons into effective policy for a better future for all affected communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It has been an excellent debate, and I applaud the many Members on both sides of the House who have made insightful contributions to the discussion. Not only have they brought up issues affecting their own constituency —as, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out so powerfully in his speech—but Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), speaking in his capacity as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, set out a number of really important points that will affect the detail of how this plays out at local level. I am glad that the Minister touched on those points in his introduction.

As the House knows, local government in the UK spends around £40 billion of taxpayers’ money and over 800 different services are delivered by the average local authority. As a consequence, this issue touches the lives of more constituents than almost any other area of government activity. The starting point that we have to recognise is the one that was made by the chairman of the County Councils Network, who said that from the perspective of local authorities, this was the worst settlement in years. It is clear from the Minister’s introduction that he is a Minister who knows his WOECAT from his BRB from his persnuffle, but the impact of that detail matters so much.

In particular, the most significant element is the imposition of employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget. According to the estimates of the Local Government Association, local authorities face more than £1 billion in unfunded costs arising from that alone. Harlow council, for example, has set out that this settlement represents a 21% cut in its core funding, within which it will receive £198,000 of revenue support in this year only for over £1 million of additional direct costs from national insurance contributions. That cost will rise to £1.2 million next year, with—as currently projected—no funding provided at all.

The Institute for Government has analysed the Government’s Budget overall, and when it looks at those elements affecting local government, it says that the Budget is “heavily front-loaded”—there is additional funding this year—but that the current plans set out by the Chancellor imply that there will be cuts in every year for the remainder of the Parliament, which will make it very

“difficult for…local government…to improve”.

We need to recognise that although there will be winners and losers, this is a budget settlement for local government that contains an enormous number of challenges, and there remain a number of very significant questions, which I will come to in a moment.

I welcome the point made by a number of Members about the value that we place on our local councillors. I have spoken to the Minister, and I agree with the point raised by a number of Members about restoring the access of councillors in England to the local government pension scheme. We must demonstrate the value that we place on local leadership, and that will be even more significant in the context of extensive local government reform. I know that is something Ministers are considering, and that its cost is minimal in the context of the overall local government finance settlement. As many Members have pointed out, motiving local leadership is vital to getting this right. With the reduction in the number of councillors and local politicians, in a country whose population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, we must ensure that that growing democratic deficit is addressed by engaged, effective local politicians with the ability to make decisions in their area.

Let us look at where the money is going, where it is coming from and how that is changed. As the Minister knows, around three-quarters of council funding is spent on social care, and since the fair access criteria that were introduced by the last Labour Government, that is no longer a matter of local decision making. It is largely a statutory duty, where clear rules are set out in guidance from central Government about how that money will be spent, and how each resident and each constituency can help and will be treated. As a consequence, the bulk of funding going into the system is being spent on what we might describe as the “must dos”, rather than the “nice to haves”, and the fulfilment of clearly defined statutory duties.

If we cast our minds back to the last local government report of this nature under the previous Labour Government, we see a much longer report than the one before the House this evening. That report sets out the relative needs formula, which was the methodology used for the distribution of funding for all manner of different areas of local government activity. In 2010, around 25% of local government resources came from council tax, 27% came from the formula grant, which was essentially a redistribution of business rates, and 48%—very nearly half—came from specific grants, of which around two-thirds was the education budget. One of the big changes that has taken place over that period is the growth in the independence of schools and the rise of academies, and therefore a much larger share of that funding no longer sits within the local authority budget but is paid by the Education and Skills Funding Agency direct to schools. While that funding is no longer part of the council’s budget, it is still being spent locally on the same services that it always was.

A lot of debate in the House on local government has been about devolution, and one of the most significant areas of devolution regards financial responsibility. If we reflect on those same formula elements today, 52% of council spending is derived from council tax, directly under local control, and 27% comes from a grown share of business rates pooling, with a focus on incentivising councils to deliver growth. A much lower 22% comes from grant funding, as the Government sought to give local authorities over that 14-year period a much greater degree of control over their own resources. When we reflect on what that formula also tells us, as a number of Members have said, the decision to scrap things such as the rural services delivery grant reflects a criticism of the priorities set out by the previous Government.

We must also reflect that when we look at the list of the lowest funded councils in 1997, in 2010, and today, we find broadly the same set of local authorities on that list. The consequence of that is clear: no Government can cut funding that the council did not have in the first place. While most Conservative, and particularly rural, authorities did not see any benefit, or no significant benefit in funding through the indices of multiple deprivation, for the most part, the Conservative Government for 14 years maintained a significant premium of funding to areas for things such as children on free school meals going into education and in ensuring that deprivation formulas continued to play a significant part in the distribution of social care resources. The rural services delivery grant was a small step towards recognising, in the distribution of local government funding, the additional costs that were faced by places that had never seen any benefit from any Government. Members from all parts of the House—particularly Labour Members newly elected to rural areas—have said how awful it is that their local authorities are challenged by costs such as potholes and maintaining rural roads. Wait until they find out who decided to take away the rural services delivery grant, which would have provided the resources to deal with that.

The biggest challenge that all local authorities face will be dealing in parallel with reorganisation and the tight financial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said in the statement on devolution, it is clear that the Government—I respect the fact that they have been clear about this in their statements to the House—have made a decision in Whitehall about the form that they expect to see local government in England taking. It is also clear that they will ensure that that is implemented initially through local authorities coming forward as volunteers, and subsequently through a statutory invitation to ensure that they do.

I hope that the Minister will address a number of those points in summing up. The report is principally about the revenue support grant: local authorities do not yet know where they stand on the public health grant. They do not yet clearly know where they stand on schools funding. They do not yet clearly know the impact of Government announcements on the housing revenue account or the parking revenue account, all of which will have a significant impact. In particular, the statutory override on the dedicated schools grant for SEND remains uncertain and a significant budget pressure.

Let me finish where my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton finished: if the Government can find £18 billion to cover the cost of the Chagos Islands deal, I am sure they can find the funds to make a better fist of it for our local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen. The Minister tried to respond to his comments but he was not interested in the answers, so he will sit down and listen to my closing remarks. I want to respond to hon. Members across the House who have taken these issues very seriously.

This Government have already invested £3.7 billion in social care. We have recognised the need for investment in response to the rise in national insurance contributions —up by £515 million, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. We have invested £1 billion in SEND and £600 million in the recovery fund. That is a snapshot of the investment that we are putting in. Local government and local services were starved of much-needed support under the last Government. That is what we are trying to correct.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

The shadow Minister has had his chance to make his points. It is my turn to sum up, and I want to address the points that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

No.

We are very serious about working with colleagues both in Parliament and in local areas to tackle these very serious challenges, which local authorities need us to address after 14 years of under-investment.

[David Simmonds]

rose—

[Rushanara Ali]

I am concluding my speech. The shadow Minister has had his chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

An exemplar contribution. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about ensuring that local authorities receive expertise and support, which is why the local audit office is so important. I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will work with him and his Committee to ensure we get it right, so that local authorities get the right support to ensure their finances are carefully managed.

I thank hon. Members once again for their valuable contributions. As I hope has been clear throughout the course of the debate, the Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenges before us. There is no silver bullet to solve them. After 14 years, the idea that within the space of seven months all the underlying issues can be resolved is for the birds. I hope hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, recognise that we have to take the issues seriously. Just turning up and scoring points will not do the job. We have to recognise that there are serious issues and challenges. Where we can work together, we must.

I am conscious that I did not give way to the shadow Minister. If he wants to work with us, I am very happy to give way.

[David Simmonds]

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

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the shadow Minister did not hear the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, or my remarks, about what the Government have already invested in local government—billions. Does he want me to go over it again? There is not much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suggest that he goes back and listens to the speech and those announcements. He knows that, in a very challenging set of circumstances, we have invested an additional £5 billion in local government. I hope very much that we can work on areas in which we can agree, but where we cannot, let us agree to disagree.

As I have said, there is no silver bullet that will solve the difficulties that we have to address, many of which we have inherited. Today is the start, not the end, of the process of reform and renewal, but with this settlement we have begun the task of putting councils on a sounder financial footing, fixing the foundations, and strengthening the sector for the long term. This will give councils the certainty and stability that they need in order to plan, move from crisis management to prevention, and deliver the change that the country needs: higher growth, higher living standards, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities as we rebuild as part of our plan for change. We are putting more money into people’s pockets, and putting stability, investment and reform first to deliver national renewal. We are putting Government back in the service of working people. I commend this settlement to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Resolved,

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.)

Holocaust Memorial Day

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege and an honour as a shadow Minister, but also as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, to close today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. I share the very complimentary observations of many Members about the Minister’s opening speech. He was very clear in restating the importance not only of recalling in particular the Holocaust that took place in the second world war, targeted at 6 million Jews and people from all kinds of minority backgrounds, but of ensuring—this has been reflected in the many contributions from Members across the Chamber—that when we debate these issues, we think about the lessons we can learn from what happened then, from earlier tragedies and from events since, in order to ensure that as far as possible, we are doing what we can to make sure those kinds of events are never repeated.

There have been many moving and impactful speeches. The hon. Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) all made contributions—as did every speaker—that I will try to reflect in my closing speech, in particular where the points they made relate to lessons that we need to learn for the future.

It is incredibly important to hear the testimony of survivors, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to people such as my constituent, Paul Sved. He is one of those Holocaust survivors who travels the country with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, speaking about what he experienced as a child and the impact it had on him, his family and his wider community. These are all reminders of the human stories that make the level of inhumanity that was shown in the Holocaust even harder to comprehend. It is also an opportunity to reflect that even in the midst of all that darkness, there are examples of humanity—of people in difficult situations taking steps to preserve the lives of their neighbours, and sometimes of strangers in their community.

I had the opportunity to visit the Wannsee villa, a beautiful lakeside house on the outskirts of Berlin—a place like my constituency. That house was the command centre for the Holocaust; it is where the committees of Nazi politicians, police and military met to manage the logistics. Today, it is a museum, displaying the records that were kept of all the meetings that took place. The thing that I found very striking about it as a visiting politician was the banality of that evidence and those records. It was like reading the minutes of the planning committees that I saw in a local authority. They list who attended and what they discussed, but instead of recording the details of people’s extensions and changes to the design of their home and their neighbours’ views, they record in detail the planning and execution of a Government-level strategy of mass murder. That emphasises the importance of learning from history. When we see the statue at Friedrichstraße station—the memorial to the Kindertransport—we can recall that at the end of world war two, when the Russian forces arrived in Berlin, they found 1,700 Jewish people living in that city who had been sheltered by a combination of city authorities and neighbours. Even in those dark places, there were those who were willing to help.

It is important to remember that antisemitism has much older roots. I was very struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who talked about the blood libel. In a world that often seems very polarised, it always seems to me a great irony that even further back than that, the Islamic caliphate that ruled Spain—with which much of Christian Europe was at war for centuries—was the one place of safety in Europe for Jewish people for a very long time. Antisemitism is something that has deep roots, and it is incumbent on us to be aware of those roots if we are to deal with it effectively.

Members have spoken about the need to spot examples of similar human behaviour in more recent years. Srebrenica was described; many Members spoke movingly of their experiences of it, and insights from it. As the displays at Mr Speaker’s event yesterday set out, what happened in Rwanda was one of the most hideous genocides of the modern era. Many of us will recall seeing that tragedy unfold on the TV news, or hearing about it on the radio. That ties in with the theme of today’s debate. Rwanda is now a modern, democratic nation working with countries across Europe and the United Nations—for example, to resettle refugees. It is a good example of the fact that when terrible things happen, people may not always progress quickly to a perfect situation, but they can learn, identify lessons, and seek to make amends.

As well as an opportunity to recall what happened, this debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on what the nation and Parliament need to do in policy terms. It is important to acknowledge, for example, our nation’s commitment, through our Government, to the European convention on human rights. It expresses fundamental and ancient British values to do with the rule of law and due process, and applies to 46 nations, many of which chose to enshrine those values because they wanted to learn from the events that led up to the Holocaust, and to ensure that it never happened again.

There is always scope for debate on whether treaties and conventions are fit for the modern age, but our nation must continue to work alongside the UN, and to value international law and agreements—from those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to those of the International Maritime Organisation—that enshrine the rules on how we treat people, such as refugees in small boats who find themselves in distress at sea. They have a bearing on how we work with other countries, as a leading nation and a leading voice in the international community, to encourage others to share our values of liberty and democracy.

When we recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, my constituency neighbour, did in such historical detail, the events leading up to world war two, it puts into context our debates in the Chamber about defence spending. We can debate the figures, but there is clearly a broad commitment to moving towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. As my hon. Friend set out, however, we had commitments to others across Europe in 1939 that we simply could not meet in practice. Our country was able to defend itself, as the battle of Britain showed, but we should all ask ourselves—my hon. Friend posed this challenge—what would have been different if we had learned lessons and acted sooner. Would we have been able, in smaller or greater measure, to prevent the tragedy that unfolded and took so many innocent lives?

The United Kingdom is not a global policeman any more—the years of the Victorian pax Britannica are clearly long gone—but there remains scope for free nations to work together, and many of them have an honourable history in this respect. The Minister and I have talked a lot about Grenfell Tower, given our portfolios. Grenfell was sent to deal with the consequences of atrocities in the Sudan that caused serious concern across the world in the Victorian era. British troops, British forces and British diplomacy were frequently deployed, as in Benin, because of concern about the large-scale loss of life and atrocities that were destabilising communities.

Looking around our modern world, we see the Russianisation of deported Ukrainian children, who were taken from their families to another country to be changed into citizens of a different place with a different outlook. We look at what has happened to the Uyghur people and the Rohingya, and we look at the unfolding tragedy in Gaza and Israel. We may not be able to intervene directly and put a stop to those things, but the combined forces of the international community can be extremely powerful. We may not always be able to intervene early enough to prevent the worst of a tragedy, but we still have the scope to make a difference.

Many of us will be conscious of the impact of these issues on our constituents; I have heard Rabbi Aaron Goldstein at the Ark synagogue in my constituency speak about that movingly. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) joined me in a visit. It is twinned with synagogues in Ukraine, and holds services together with people whose homes are being bombed and whose synagogues are under attack. The Holocaust that we are talking about is an historical event, but its consequences and the attitudes behind it are very much alive, not just in Europe, but elsewhere in the world.

I add the Opposition’s thanks to organisations that do incredibly important work on this issue, particularly in this era of heightened tension and heightened fear of antisemitism. I applaud the fact that the Government have, through cross-party work, carried on providing the necessary finance to the Community Security Trust, which has a visible presence around synagogues in my constituency. It provides reassurance to our Jewish citizens, and their friends and neighbours, so that they can freely practise their faith and associate with members of their community without fear.

Notwithstanding some of the debate around marches in central London, I welcome the fact that in most of our communities, relationships remain good. In particular, relationships that were build up during the covid era, when people of all faiths came together with Churches and community organisations, have stood us in good stead, and people have not allowed themselves to be divided. I thank the Metropolitan police, and police forces across the country, who have responded to issues robustly, but with sensitivity. Since 2016, there has been not only long-standing, cross-party support for funding for the CST, which provides security assistance for synagogues and our Jewish community, but funding to ensure that our Muslim community enjoys additional security and protection.

All those who have testified about their experience of coming here from Holocaust-blighted Europe for a new start have described the importance of being in a place where freedom applies to everybody, and is not the preserve of a few. It is enormously important that the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and the educational programmes that sit alongside it, continues, so that our children and future generations have the opportunity we have had to hear the testimony of those who have been through those dark periods, and the opportunity, which many Members described so movingly, to learn from history and ensure that we do not repeat its worst mistakes.

Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on community engagement principles and extremism.

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

National security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. As the Prime Minister said this morning,

“Britain now faces a new threat”—

a threat of extreme violence from people who are driven by material online. They are often now lone individuals who are driven by a twisted desire for notoriety. It is a threat that we must contend with, alongside that from traditional terrorist groups.

The House will be aware that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House shortly. All aspects of this changing threat will be considered in her rapid review, ordered last year, which will inform the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. The review panel is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, and its work will include a focus on how best to tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies, both online and offline. Early findings were set out in December, alongside initial measures to tackle the challenges that we face. The Home Office will provide a further update on the measures and actions arising from the counter-extremism sprint shortly.

Our Department retains responsibility for communities and cohesion policy, and the Deputy Prime Minister has convened a new cross-Government communities recovery steering group to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of divisions in our local communities. In particular, it seeks to address some of the causes of the disorder across the UK following the Southport tragedy last summer. We have made it clear that a new approach is urgently needed, and we have backed that with an initial £50 million from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government community recovery fund to support areas that were impacted over the summer.

[David Simmonds]

This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation.

The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected

“to arise from the previous Government’s”

cross-party

“approach to extremism”.

A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles.

I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process?

[Alex Norris]

I do not think it will be a revelation for Members to hear that a change of Government often means a change of approach to what have been shared views and shared problems. I believe that the last Government deeply wanted to tackle extremism in all its forms across the country, and we share that desire. Where we differ is on the approach taken by the Department.

In last year’s written ministerial statement—this, I have to say, is something with which I simply cannot agree—the previous Secretary of State, for whom I have a lot of respect, chose for the Department to assume a great deal of responsibility for the issue, essentially on the part of the entire Government. I do not think that is the right approach, for very good reasons. Counter-extremism should, I believe, be the fundamental purview of the Home Office, not least because of the Home Office’s access to confidential information that is often not available to the MCHLG. The approach that we have chosen in the new Government is to have a cross-Government but Home Office-led counter-extremism sprint, which will lead in due course to a counter-extremism strategy that shapes the Government’s way forward. That is a different approach to what is, I believe, a commonly understood problem.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the previous process as robust. Let us be honest: it was not used. The previous Secretary of State made a detailed written ministerial statement and set out a system that could have led on this issue. He named some organisations, but it was very clear in the written ministerial statement that he was not prejudging any process for those organisations, and he subsequently did not use the process. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s attachment to a previous process that the previous Government chose not to use.

On the point about openness, I have answered multiple questions from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister. I will continue to do so, and we will be as open as we possibly can be. Similarly, with regard to the steering group, I do not think we have made that information public, but I am sure there is no problem in doing so. I will make sure that it is available.