Power to Cancel Local Elections

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, at a time when Parliament is very active in the world of local government, which shows how much it matters. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his local government experience and the diversity of services that local authorities provide; over 800 different services are provided by each council on average. That reflects the level of interest that all Governments and parties have in ensuring that the organisation and structure are correct.

As the Opposition, we have approached the issue of local government reorganisation with the seriousness with which we treated the same issue when we were in government. Where we are this evening, in looking at this petition, and where we have been in recent weeks, is fairly and squarely a mess of this Government’s making.

We must reflect that, when in government, we undertook, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford described, a number of reorganisations of local authorities, in each case committing that elections would never be deferred for more than a 12-month period—and they never were. There are good grounds for saying to our constituents, “Why spend millions of taxpayers’ money electing councillors to an authority that is about to be abolished? Better instead to have elections for the successor authorities.”

At the outset of this process—the former Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is well recorded in Hansard—there was a very clear devolution priority programme in which councils were told, “You are going to be abolished. The Government will bring forward that legislation. Elections will go ahead for new unitary authorities or new mayors in your local area, so democracy will not be denied. You are engaging with this process in good faith. The voters will have their say. But what we are not going to do is elect people to councils that are about to be abolished.”

We are in this position today because the Government have signally failed to deliver on their devolution priority programme. Just one of those local authority areas, Surrey, has achieved the status of getting its new unitary authorities approved by Parliament—18 months into a process that the Government have described as a flagship programme.

Let us reflect on the process that Parliament followed. At the outset, the former Minister brought proposals to a Delegated Legislation Committee in March 2025 to postpone the elections in all the devolution priority programme areas. Members of the Conservative party on that Committee voted against those proposals, because we were not convinced by what the Minister was setting out about the deliverability of the underlying devolution priority programme. We have been proved correct.

In a situation where the Government were clear that the authorities were going to be abolished but had yet to bring forward any clear programme for the creation of the new mayors, and had yet to pass the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would set up the framework for that, we made the argument that cancelling elections was not a responsible thing to do. Nonetheless, the Government pressed ahead, despite those warnings from the Conservative Opposition. Following that, of course, there was a reshuffle in Government.

At this point, it will be of value to reflect on the Gould principles, which underlie decision-making and state that, when cancellations of this nature occur, a minimum of six months’ notice is normally provided. Clearly, putting elections off for 12 months in authorities that, at the end of that period, would simply be 12 months closer to abolition creates huge uncertainty for local voters.

When we look at the frequent urgent questions, the opportunities we have used in Hansard through departmental questions and Opposition day debates to raise this issue, it is clear that we have sought to hold the Government to account. I reflect, for example, that I was told in response to an urgent question in December that, to quote from Hansard,

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

The following day, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told the House that those mayoral elections scheduled for this May in those devolution areas were being cancelled after all. It is abundantly clear that there has been chaos in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —a complete lack of direction—and it has left local government leaders across the country, who have been seeking to act in good faith and with an eye to the good use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining democracy in their areas, in an incredibly difficult position. The fact that we have seen Ministers, literally 24 hours later, reversing the position that they had been telling Parliament, has been characteristic of that entire process.

Let us reflect on the decisions that led to the most recent hokey cokey, the Government having made it clear that they were minded to press ahead with cancelling those elections. We know that the feedback from local government leaders around the country is that they were placed under enormous pressure by the Department and Ministers to say that they wanted the cancellation to go ahead, to the extent that drafts of letters were sent back to council leaders asking them to say in more clear and serious terms what the impact would be on devolution if the elections were to go ahead according to schedule; to their credit, many of those leaders and local authorities resisted the pressure that they were put under. But that resulted in the Secretary of State making the announcement that he would be bringing forward proposals to cancel elections in those 31 local authority areas, with Pendle being added 24 hours after the announcement was made—again, characteristic of the chaotic approach that the Government have adopted.

What is curious about the whole process—and this is the nub of the questions that I put to the Minister—is that although we have heard a lot from Reform Members about the judicial review, we need to be clear that Reform did not win a judicial review against the Government. The Government surrendered without a shot being fired; they essentially offered no defence. The Secretary of State, with the judicial review coming into view, decided to reverse his decision. Had he brought forward legislation to Parliament to cancel or postpone these elections, that would have been beyond the scope of a judicial review, as parliamentary proceedings are—as was the case when he dealt with exactly the same set of questions on the basis of legal advice that the Department had been provided with, roughly 12 months beforehand.

The key question is: what had changed? What was different that made something advised to be unambiguously lawful, dealt with through the delegated legislation process —with a clear robust defence from Ministers that it was the right thing to do and entirely in accordance with the measures in the Local Government Act 2000—become unlawful eight or nine months later? There is very little that legal advisers have brought to the Opposition’s attention that suggests that, had the Secretary of State pressed ahead with his decision, placed that decision before Parliament and had Parliament voted for the elections to be cancelled, that would be subject to challenge.

It is clear, however, that in defending a judicial review the Government would have had to set out the correspondence and discussions that they had with all the local authorities that they were putting under such acute pressure to seek the cancellation of the elections. The Opposition are going to be pushing hard to understand what it was that led the Secretary of State to delegate the decision to a different Minister, rather than make it himself as the legislation envisages, and to instead reverse at the last minute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford noted.

That decision was taken at huge cost and had a huge impact on local authorities, many of which, on the basis of the Government’s assurances, had released the polling stations, told schools that they would now be open on polling day, and had stood down the polling clerks and staff who were not going to be needed because the Government had cancelled the elections. Many had told the police that they could stand down their planned patrols ensuring that those elections could go ahead, because the Government were cancelling. The police now have to put that operation back together at incredibly short notice.

 I know that the Minister’s answer to the question of what changed is likely to be that the Government do not discuss the basis of their legal advice. That is a principle that Governments of all parties have stuck to for many years. However, the legal context of the decision made in March 2025—I remind the House that we, as an Opposition, voted against the decision—was that it was lawful and in accordance with custom and practice for the Government to postpone the local elections. What was different when the Secretary of State came to put this decision before Parliament nearly 12 months later? What had changed—other than the grave concern of many Labour council leaders that they were facing a drubbing at the polls—to lead the Secretary of State to decide not to press forward with asking Parliament to agree, through the legislative process, that election cancellation, as he had indicated, in his own judgment, that he would?

I finish with these points: in response to the understandable fury of many local leaders at the mess with which they had been left, the Secretary of State rather hastily announced £63 million of additional—as it was described—“capacity” grant. It would be helpful if the Minister set out, for the benefit of the House, what guidance has been given for the use of that capacity grant. It sounds rather like the amount that would be required to set the elections back up again at very short notice, expensive as that would be.

I reflect on the words of one of the Minister’s predecessors, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton. He spoke in Parliament in a debate on an urgent question. He described himself as “blunt” and said:

“Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith.”

I agree. He—a former Minister of this Government—said:

“They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent.”

He concluded, regarding this Government’s actions, that

“we need to be better than this.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1166-1167.]

Does this Minister agree?

Representation of the People Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.

Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.

Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.

The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.

A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.

Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.

We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.

On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.

Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]

[David Simmonds]

I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.

In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I am sure we all recognise that when the proceedings in Committee Room 11 of the House of Commons are recorded in the annals of history, it will be noted that this was the afternoon when Surrey died, not with a bang but with a whimper, inside this very room. We are all here to abolish Surrey. There may be some in the room who felt a great enthusiasm to do that many years ago, but it is positive that we are here with what has, for a long time, been a locally led proposal for reorganisation.

I have some questions for the Minister, although I will be clear that because this is a locally led proposal that delivers benefits in the views of local leaders, the Opposition will not oppose the draft order. It is clearly disappointing that of the 31 local authorities that had their elections cancelled, we have only Surrey and its districts proceeding with local government reorganisation today. Although the draft order is very much focused on the reorganisation of the existing local authorities, there is no clarity whatsoever about the promised mayor and their responsibilities, and how they will interact with the new authorities. I have heard the frustration of many local leaders that the overall package, while acceptable, falls well short of the minimum that they were led to expect as a result of wider English local government reorganisation.

I hope the Minister will address these points in her response. She touched on the Government’s proposals to address the SEND deficit. Surrey, being a very large county with a high population of children with special educational needs and disabilities, carries a total deficit—sorry, a total debt—of around £350 million. A short time ago, the Government set out to the House that they would seek to pay off 90% of SEND deficits. Thus far, Surrey has been offered £100 million against a £350 million deficit. Clearly, that would bake in a structural problem of £250 million for the successor authorities, and it is very substantially less than the 90% that was promised before the House. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what discussions and agreements she may have reached with her fellow Ministers in the Department for Education, given that that is one of the most critical financial challenges that will face the new authorities.

While we recognise that the draft order is specifically about Surrey, given that it sits as part of the wider devolution priority programme, it would be helpful for all of us to understand how close other local authority areas are to signing the agreements that underpin it. It would be helpful to get a sense of whether Surrey will be the only one to go through the reorganisation process. Despite the relentless pressure placed on a number of other areas, some leaders, particularly in response to what has been said about the cancellation of elections, have already withdrawn their local authorities entirely from engagement with the programme. Will this be the sole reorganisation in the programme or is it the first of many? If it is the first, when might we see some of the others?

It would be helpful for the Committee to understand what guidance the Department is providing, in the spirit of financial sustainability that the Minister spoke of, on the new higher-value property tax. Surrey is one of the areas with a higher proportion of properties that fall for consideration within that tax. We know that it is a Treasury tax that has no benefit to the local authority that collects it, but it would be helpful to understand what guidance, if any, the Department is providing to local authorities, as they engage on the very quick process of getting set up, so that they understand what they need to tell households about what the process will be and how appeals will be handled, and so that they understand their duties and responsibilities.

The Minister mentioned the additional £63 million that was announced to assist various local authorities across the country. While we know that that was very substantially less than they were promised they would receive, it would be helpful to know what guidance, if any, has been issued on the purpose of that funding. It seems very similar to the amount that those councils whose elections were to be cancelled would have spent on organising and running the elections in their areas. Clearly, many of their leaders will want to know whether this is additional funding that they can deploy towards reorganisation or simply the usual electoral grant that is provided for the running of elections that were going to be cancelled in those areas.

In summary, the Opposition will not press for a Division. We recognise that the draft order implements the will of elected leaders in Surrey, and it is very much in the spirit of our own approach to devolution. However, I must say to the Minister, as we sit here with proposals before us for only one of the authorities announced in the devolution priority programme, and with so many areas of our country feeling so let down, that this falls very far short of what was promised even to Surrey, never mind the rest of our local leaders. It would be helpful to have a clear assurance and a timeline for how the Government propose to remedy that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

[Steve Reed]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Minister has set out clearly for the House the key plank of development strategy under the previous Secretary of State: re-designating large parts of our green belt as grey belt. Housing delivery is collapsing, but a recent report identified that London already has capacity for 460,000 additional homes on brownfield sites. At the mayor’s rate of delivery, that is an 83-year supply of housing development plots. Rather than focusing on releasing green belt for development, why do the Government not instead focus on building those homes that already have planning permission, and could be built on brownfield sites tomorrow?

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business.

However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

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

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.

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

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

[David Simmonds]

I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.

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

rose—

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Gareth Thomas]

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

[David Simmonds]

Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.

[Graham Stuart]

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

[David Simmonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.

[Mr Betts]

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

[David Simmonds]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Brash]

Sorry, they cancelled it; we initiated it.

[David Simmonds]

One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.

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

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Danny Beales]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Simmonds]

I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time.

History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.

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

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

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country.

I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country.

Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this.

I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

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

[David Simmonds]

I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says:

“Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.”

Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?

[Gideon Amos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from.

There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues.

We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns.

Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers.

It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver.

It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year.

What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a parliamentary vice-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I would like to thank those organisations for the excellent research that they have supplied to Members to help us prepare for today’s debate.

While I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate, listening to her story of being a councillor—one that is reflected, I think, by a good number of Members who were present this afternoon—made me think about where it sits in the context of what is happening with the local government funding formula overall and the particular impact that it is having on our inner-London boroughs.

We know that London’s funding formula has always, to an extent, created a city of two halves. There are the inner-London boroughs, with a relatively generous settlement from that funding formula and, historically, generally lower council taxes. Then there is a doughnut of outer-London boroughs, in which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) are found, with a funding level broadly in line with the surrounding county and district authorities.

For a long time, it has been a source of concern among London authorities that there needs to be some levelling out to ensure consistency across council tax and funding. To address the longer-term funding issues, however, the Government clearly need to address the nature, scope and purpose of many of the statutory duties that exist across all those authorities, in order to enable us all to live within our means and to set levels of taxation that are reasonable for our constituents to pay.

Sadly, we are not seeing that happening. Instead, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) described, we have a Government who came to office saying that they were the cavalry coming over the hill, and that they could be trusted to inject additional resources into inner London, outer London and other parts of the country that were concerned about funding. In their first Budget, however, local government was left £1.5 billion net worse off through the jobs tax—the national insurance rise—alone.

The consistent feedback from councillors across London is that they feel a sense of shock and surprise at just how fast things have got so much worse. There are also particular significant dynamics in inner London. As several hon. Members have said, in the local government finance settlement, more than two thirds of the additional resources announced by the Government would come from the maximum possible council tax rise being imposed across the board. That is not additional Government funding, it is simply councils being required, as a minimum, to use their maximum possible tax-raising powers on the household budgets of all their local residents.

We also see the impacts of exceptional financial support, a policy that has existed under Governments of all stripes under different names for a long time. It is essentially a measure to allow a council to borrow to get it through temporary financial difficulties. It is a way of avoiding the issuance of a section 114 notice, which is the equivalent of a bankruptcy notice, by the statutory finance officers in that local authority. On an almost weekly basis, this Government make written ministerial statements on local government best value interventions, and on agreeing exceptional financial support to the extent that it is no longer exceptional. It is clearly simply a method of sustaining local authorities to avoid bad headlines, rather than addressing the nature, scope and purpose of statutory duties, which need to be addressed to get budgets back into balance.

Acute pressure has been created by an explosion in rough sleeping and homelessness in inner London since this Government took office. We need to be clear: London has always had a challenge around rough sleeping. Although my constituency does not cover Heathrow, it is a significant factor in my local authority’s activities. The number of people who find their way to an airport that is open 24/7, with showers, toilets and security, means that there are a disproportionately large number of rough sleepers in my local authority’s area.

As we heard, there has been a 27% increase in street homelessness since this Government took office. That contributes to the sharply rising pressure on temporary accommodation that London Councils, on behalf of the capital’s local authorities, has highlighted as the biggest single factor driving inner-London councils to seek exceptional financial support and to look at significant reductions across the capital in the services that our constituents expect local authorities to provide, such as libraries, parks and clean streets. At the same time, according to a recent report by Savills, two thirds of London boroughs report reaching net zero: not net zero in the traditional sense of an environmental target, but net zero new housing starts. In two thirds of our capital’s boroughs, no new homes are being added to the housing stock at a time when the Government have an increasingly unattainable target of 1.5 million new homes. To hear hon. Members from throughout the Chamber talk about the acute pressure from housing need, at a time when housing delivery in the capital has absolutely collapsed, demonstrates that things are not going in the right direction.

We are due to consider the local government finance settlement in the main Chamber tomorrow. More two thirds of local authorities have reported, having crunched the numbers on that funding formula, that they will be left worse off under it. Two thirds of councils in the country are worse off under the funding settlement being introduced by this Labour Government.

There is another significant factor. This week we heard that the SEND White Paper is to be delayed further. It will address the significant long-term structural and demographic concern driven by the increasing numbers of children with more acute needs for whom local authorities have a statutory duty—another duty over which they have no discretion. Although the statutory accounting override—to which Ministers have referred in the past—goes some way to avoiding that becoming an acute problem, we see acute pressure building up across the country, not just in inner London.

All that amounts to a situation where residents in inner London face extraordinarily significant increases in their taxes. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has reported potential increases of council tax of up to £500 a year. Earlier, I met with one of the Conservative councillors from the London borough of Barnet, traditionally one of the less affected outer London boroughs, who reported that a £200 million funding gap is opening up as a result of the changes that this Government are making. Even for those of us in outer London boroughs, where council tax rates are broadly similar to those in the surrounding county and district areas, the combination of the rises in the mayoral precept, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and those acute pressures, mean that in many cases council tax will already be at or well in excess of the £2,000 benchmark that Ministers have set out for council tax across the country.

In conclusion, we see a consistent message from across the sector. The leaders of inner-London boroughs—Labour and Conservative—talk of acute pressures getting much worse much faster than they had expected, and shortfalls in this funding settlement so excessive that no level of cuts could lead to boroughs achieving them and meeting their statutory duties. When she speaks on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, will the Minister announce a more fundamental rethink? Local authorities have a huge range of statutory duties, with more than 800 different services delivered by a typical local authority. The rise in national insurance alone has significantly driven up the cost of those activities.

We do not simply need more sticking plasters. Our residents, hearing a message from the Labour Government that there is more money in the system, find that money is coming straight out of their pockets and wallets, through massive increases in council tax. We need a fundamental rethink about how we deliver local government in the capital, so that it is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the future.

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

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am sure you will be pleased, as will the Minister, to know from the outset that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these orders. However, I do have a few questions to put to the Minister that are relevant to both orders; where they are not, I will be more specific.

The first question is about the agreement that the Minister may or may not have reached with the Treasury about the underwriting of the 30-year mayoral investment fund. One of the concerns that the Opposition have highlighted, which I know has been shared to a degree across parties, is that with the English devolution Bill there is scope, perhaps, for new mayoral authorities to raise significant precepts.

The feedback from several authorities is that the big incentive is that central Government are making a significant additional level of discretionary funding available to mayoral combined authorities. Clearly, 30 years runs over multiple future Parliaments, so it would be helpful to understand how the settlement has been reached with the Treasury, whether it means that the funding cannot disappear because of future changes in Government circumstances, and if so what the methodology has been, so that authorities entering into an agreement have a sufficient level of assurance that the funding will continue.

I would like to ask the Minister about data sharing, which is one of the new functions conferred by these orders. The authorities in question all have multiple statutory functions—they provide children’s services, adult social care and a variety of different services—but the primary focus of the orders is transport. What data ringfence is drawn around those new data-control and data-sharing measures so that residents can have a degree of assurance and clarity about what is to be shared on this footprint and what is not?

I also have a question about the precepts themselves. We briefly touched on the point about the 30-year mayoral investment fund; clearly, with transport as the major focus, the underlying assumption is that the mayor will use the new precept to underwrite investment in those transport functions. A great deal of debate is going on about how transport functions across the country should develop. It would be helpful for the Committee to know what assumptions, if any, the Ministry or other parts of Government have made about the level of the precept, and where that sits against other sources of funding, some of which the Chancellor has referred to, to underpin other elements of public transport investment. To what extent is it an additional levy being funded through a mayoral precept versus what is coming from central Government resources, as has been announced so far?

Finally, I have two questions specifically on Warrington. Members across the Committee will be aware that the Minister’s predecessor sent envoys into Warrington council last summer—it is an authority with a debt of around £1.8 billion. I appreciate that nothing in the draft order, of itself, will change the status of that debt as something owned by Warrington council, but the arrival into this combined authority of one council with such a comparatively large level of debt raises questions. The first question is whether there is a risk that the mayoral precept is effectively bailing out the debt of one of those authorities. Alternatively, given that Warrington will be required to contribute financially, will it be able to raise the necessary funds through its own arrangements, since it has envoys in place whose job is essentially to manage down that debt pile, which is extremely large compared with the overall turnover of the authority?

With those observations, which are largely about the process for reorganisation in these individual circumstances—as opposed to the principle, which we very much support—I close for the Opposition.

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

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

[The Chair]

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

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend has outlined in very clear terms what any of us in this room could on behalf of our constituencies. There will be different local dynamics, but everywhere is suffering as a consequence of the increased taxes on businesses. Government Members might not wish to hear such messages from Opposition Members—and that is understandable, because this is politics—but they might listen to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). In Prime Minister’s questions, he said that “any wins” had been “wiped out” by the increase in business rates, compared with what was proposed through transitional relief, and he reported to the House 60% and 70% rises in business rates affecting his local pubs.

I will conclude with some questions for the Minister. First, what is the net benefit of all these measures—the increases in business rates and the transitional relief—to local councils? We know from the local government finance settlement that two thirds of local authorities in England lost net funding from central Government as a consequence. Given the substantial increase in business rates income that this would imply, what will the overall impact on local government funding be?

Secondly, what assessment has the Department made of the impact that this will have on high streets and local businesses in particular? Many of those business have been lobbying us because the family business tax, the rise in national insurance and the interaction with the changes in the point at which national insurance is charged have put huge pressure on them. The impact of these business rates on top of that is enormous.

Thirdly, what role have the local reliefs, which were briefly touched on by the Minister and are set out in the explanatory memo, played in the determination of the funding settlement? Although the fig leaf is offered that local reliefs may be available, it is clear that the Government’s assumption is that all these increases will be implemented in full before any consideration is given to additional funding. What consideration has the Minister given to a return to the local authority business growth incentive business rates regime, which was designed to incentivise local authorities, through additional support from central Government, to look to create opportunities to support local businesses and high streets, in a way that we know was very effective?

The Prime Minister said on 7 January that the Government were in talks to see

“what further support and action we can take.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 260.]

That was days after he acknowledged that as a result of this settlement, pubs and hospitality, in particular, “will struggle.” The question for Opposition Members is, is this it?

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

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

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alison McGovern]

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

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

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