Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart]

Q I have one final comment. If Donald Trump took all the assets of his companies, split them between him and his children and moved all the money into his UK-based company, which runs golf courses, there would be billions, or hundreds of millions, of pounds. Given how the legislation is written currently, I think that that company could perfectly legitimately donate to any political party. I would venture to say that the Government do not want that and might think about how legislation could be amended to address that.

Samantha Dixon: We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.

[David Simmonds]

Q I have a brief question about clause 47 on the voter identification requirements. We have heard quite a lot on the point about bank cards. I am mindful that the Government’s own MoneyHelper website sets out how to get a bank card if you do not have any ID at all and also if you are of no fixed address; I know that is routinely used in electoral processes to establish your entitlement to vote in a particular place.

Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?

Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.

[David Simmonds]

Q Just to be clear, the question is about digital bank cards. A lot of people have on their phone an image of a card; they will not have a physical card.

Samantha Dixon: Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.

[The Chair]

Katrina Murray, if you can do it in 30 seconds, you can ask a question.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I know some of the witnesses through non-parliamentary activity. When they sit down, I will explain to the Committee my connection to them.

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

I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

Q My second question is picking up on Ms Yule’s point about harassment. It is a very good thing to bring electoral staff into the consideration of that; I think everybody sensible would agree.

From my experience of being involved in elections, there is sometimes a lack of clarity on who to go to with problems—is it the RO or the police? Is there a uniformity in how the law is enforced? Different police forces have different experiences or resourcing levels when it comes to pursuing somebody breaking election law. Can you talk about how you see the Bill addressing any of those issues or about areas where you think it could have gone further or been clearer?

Emily Yule: Some of that is already being addressed in practical terms. There has been a lot of joint working between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the police and local returning officers to make sure that those contacts within police forces are very visible, and that you know how to get in touch and report issues.

Our members still experience a disparity in the level of engagement in different force areas, but we see a commitment coming forward to try to balance that out. There is a critical part around communication with candidates, agents and others involved in the electoral process, so that they really understand. There is a guidance element about when it is a returning officer issue, when it is a police issue and when it is an Electoral Commission issue. The Bill has an opportunity to consolidate that good practice, but it is emerging and we have started to see it coming through in recent elections. As the specific, dedicated officers within police forces build up knowledge of electoral process, offences and issues, that will only increase.

Councillor Bentley: I pointed out the issue of harassment in my first answer, by which I meant harassment of both candidates and officers. Clarity of the law is very important, as is people understanding what is an offence. It is important for the police to have that clarity as well. You do not have police officers here, at least not in this session, but they have a difficult job in working out what is just a disagreement and what is harassment. That happens in elections.

We must not forget that a lot of this will take place and has taken place on social media. We need to make sure that the law is very clear. I am in favour of the harassment bit being in the Bill—it needs to be highlighted. However, we need greater clarity about what is an offence and what is not.

[David Simmonds]

Q There are two areas I would like to explore briefly. We heard a lot from the local government family about the chaos created by elections being cancelled, then uncancelled, and so on. Part 3 of the Bill includes a number of provisions to change the arrangements for elections. We heard about police needing to be put on the rota, then cancelled, then put back on again and schools needing to close, then reopen, then close again because polling was going ahead and then not. What are your reflections on the timeline, the consequences of those changes and the considerations that go with that?

Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required?

Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change.

We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute.

On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it.

Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things.

Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in.

We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources.

Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information.

In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.

[The Chair]

Ms Chowns, we only have three minutes left, so I may not be able to come to others. Please be brief.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.

The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this instrument, but I have some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. One of the challenges with an instrument of this nature is to understand what its consequences will be. We have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill raise a question on behalf of his constituents about what this will mean in practice.

The Government’s consultation on the business rates reset clearly described it as a “redistributive act”. The purpose of it is to take business rates growth away from places that have also had the consequences of developments, allocating it to other areas. We do not have the information in front of us to set out what the consequences will be at a local level, but we know that has been a key concern for council leaders of all parties, not least because if they consent to a very substantial development that leads to very significant growth in their business rates income, that growth in income is intended to offset its negative consequences. For example, the development might generate additional traffic or lead to a lot more workers travelling to a particular area, requiring additional emergency facilities. The loss of that income through redistribution to other parts of the country, through a formula that we do not have in front of us, could have quite a significant negative consequence.

Over the years—it is no different with the current Government—central Government have been very keen to encourage local authorities to give consent to developments that create additional business that pays more business rates, creates jobs and all the rest of it. We know that is facing a significant challenge at the moment, and local authorities looking at this instrument can see that they will be losing out, having put the cost of consenting to a development on to local taxpayers, which will certainly discourage them from being so willing in future.

Can the Minister set out briefly for the Committee what she expects to be the consequent changes in funding levels? Clearly, those could be quite substantial, and this is a system of top-ups and tariffs, as we have had in place to a degree for a long time, so it would be helpful to understand whether there are any significant winners or losers as a consequence of the decision that people are being asked to make.

Secondly, when the Minister refers to a reset of the business rates mechanism, what does she expect it to reset to, so that those local authorities have a clear line of sight that says, “This will be the consequence for your business rates collection at a local level”?

Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the explanatory memorandum that she has kindly circulated. Paragraph 5.6 addresses the way in which the funding is to flow. She is making a change to shift it from the general fund—that is part of the annual budget-setting process of a local authority—into the collection fund, which is subject to a longer period of decision making. I can see why there might be some arguments for doing that. However, it would be helpful to understand what she expects the consequence to be, so that when our local authority colleagues set their budgets, they have a clear sense of what the consequence will be of shifting the flow of that money from an account covered by the general provision on fixing council tax, which has to be balanced in-year, to a collection fund, where more flexible rules apply.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.

[David Simmonds]

I apologise, but I meant paragraph 5.13, not paragraph 5.6, of the explanatory memorandum. I had turned over the page and misread my record.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point.

On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period. That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum.

In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system. As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my roles as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.

I congratulate to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing the debate. He, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set the tone of a debate that has engaged, with a high degree of seriousness, not only with the issues that stem from the specifics of what is happening in Surrey but with what they say about the wider local government reorganisation debate.

It was interesting as a parliamentarian to be present, a short time ago, at a Delegated Legislation Committee in which Committee members agreed the abolition of the historic county of Surrey and its replacement with two unitary authorities. That was the conclusion of a long period of debate in which, as the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, the leaders of county councils in particular argued strongly that local government reorganisation on the footprint of the existing county structure would be a way to save money. Many district councils argued strongly against that idea, and it was called into question by many experienced unitary leaders.

We all recognise that there is a need to look again at our local government settlement. This country is already very under-represented in democratic terms at the local level, with the fewest elected politicians per capita of any developed democracy. It is also intensely centralised by comparison with most other countries, with decisions that would as a matter of routine be local decisions in most other democracies taken by Parliament or central Government.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Minister, because while she is from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, council services touch on the work of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The observations that other Members have made about the impact of special educational needs and disabilities demonstrate that complexity, where an issue that sits outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is one of the single biggest factors in the viability of local authorities.

The last time we faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I asked the Minister, with particular respect to Surrey, whether there was an update on negotiations. Surrey had set out very clearly that its deficit on SEND spending sits at around £350 million, and the Government had been clear—in fairness, it was Department for Education Ministers—that they would pay off 90% of that deficit. The offer to Surrey was £100 million, which was significantly less than the 90% that we were promised at the Dispatch Box. This is not simply a matter of what happens in a single Government Ministry; it brings together services, activities and decisions across Government.

Reflecting on the long history of local government reorganisation, it probably predates the existence of our country as a unitary state. Certainly the role of some ancient Saxon kingdoms is quite akin to the behaviour of some local government leaders today. The particular challenges that come from the difficult relationship between central and local government are manifest here today.

With regard to recent developments, I spent 12 years in local government under the previous Labour Government and a further 12 years there under the Conservative Government who left office in 2024, and many of the decisions that were made then by central Government—statutory requirements placed on local authorities such as SEND arrangements, social care, the fair access criteria that were introduced, housing—were never fully funded. Since the early 2000s, there has been steady growth in the share of local government spending that is consumed by social care and housing. We have seen an erosion of the ability of our elected local leaders to deploy locally raised resources against local priorities, to the extent that social care now consumes around 70% to 80% of the budget of a typical social care authority. That is not sustainable.

Other Members have spoken passionately and with a degree of criticism about the impact that investment decisions at the council level have had. We all recognise that councils led by all of the parties represented here have made both good and bad decisions when it comes to investment, but we should be wary of criticising local leaders for having made decisions in good faith that did not end well. At a time when the public works loan board interest rate was 0.25%, the decision—even by a council—to take a loan and put it in the bank would have generated additional finance that could have supported local government services. Those decisions were not always innately wrong, but the impact of covid on local authorities’ investments in commercial property was absolutely devastating. Spelthorne, which has been mentioned today, is one example of that: what would have looked like an extremely sound commercial investment turned into a very bad one because of the impact of covid.

         We find ourselves today in a situation where Surrey is unusual. It is the only authority announced for the devolution priority programme that has got to the point of creating new successor unitary authorities. At the outset of this process, the Government were very clear that they were going to cancel the elections in all the devolution priority programme councils, which we voted against at the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered that matter. They did so on the basis that elections for the new unitaries and mayors would take place across the country. There were supposed to be elections this May for new mayors in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hampshire and many other places. Political parties and local leaders had been working on that basis, only to find after a 24-hour U-turn last December that the elections that were promised to go ahead were suddenly being cancelled.

All this delay and dithering is imposing costs. I met yesterday with a finance company that told me that the procurement of new finance systems across the local authority sector has simply ground to a halt in the absence of any clarity from Government about what is happening. The commissioning of new services in social care to address homelessness has collapsed, which I know concerns the Minister, as has the delivery of housing—both the pipeline of new applications and the completions of new properties. Two thirds of London boroughs report no new net additional homes. That is an absolute indictment of the state in which many of our councils find themselves because of the delay imposed by this process.

As the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, both the Government and the wider argument for this reorganisation rely on a now rather old report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers at the instigation of the County Councils Network to support the case for county-based reorganisation. It is clear from the evidence he presented that the hon. Member, who left us in no doubt about what he thinks of this process, knows of what he speaks. The start of the process was simple. Half a million people was the minimum footprint in order to secure savings. That was the level that the Treasury expected to see delivered. However, that is significantly larger than the existing footprint of most unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described, it risked losing the sense of place and identity. Ministers quite wisely backed off. They looked at the bids from the local authority areas that were instructed to submit them and settled on a smaller footprint.

That fundamentally undermines the case that this will result in significant revenue savings to the Government in the medium to long term, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Crawley. A concern that the Opposition have raised a number of times on the Floor of the House is that the Government have no independent modelling or independent financial analysis to back up their direction of travel on these reorganisation decisions.

As all Members who spoke passionately about their enthusiasm for getting local Government right recognised, when we compare ourselves, sometimes unfavourably, to other European countries and ask why they seem to be able to build railways and public transport infrastructure faster than the United Kingdom, the answer is largely that those decisions are made at local and regional level; they are not made by central Government. Delivery of rail networks or citywide transport, for example, which I know is of concern to a huge number of Members where lots of good projects are on the stocks, is much faster and cheaper in many other countries. We need to look at what we can learn from their experience.

We need to reflect on the role of the Treasury. I have heard former Chancellors say that when the demand for additional day-to-day spending becomes unbearable, the temptation is to simply slow down the exit of capital from the door on major projects. One of the benefits of localisation is that it removes that temptation from Chancellors and ensures that things that are committed to, become deliverable at a local level.

There are many urgent pressures. One of the key concerns I hear from councils all the time is that the Government do not have a huge amount of time to think, not just in the sense of the parliamentary timetable but when we look across our country. Unemployment has been relentlessly rising every single month since the Government took office, homelessness has surged up 27% in London alone since the Government took office, debt is rising rapidly, planning decisions are grinding to a halt and housing delivery is grinding to a halt. We need to give local communities hope that there is a prospect of solving some of those matters. I share a concern with the hon. Member for Crawley, which affects us very directly. The decisions that the Government have made in the Home Office, speeding up decision making on asylum seekers, pushing those people out the door and up the road to the town hall which then has responsibility for housing them, is putting acute pressure on my local authority, his local authority and many others across the country who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

It is very clear that a whole range of issues are brought to our attention by what is happening in Surrey. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have set out their particular concerns. I hope that, as a result of the observations made in the debate, we may see the Government come back with a revised set of policies that reflect a clear sense of place and the opportunity for all our constituents to know that they will have elected representatives who can make the decisions that they want to see made at a local level.

[Peter Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.

Community Cohesion

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.

As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.

It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.

The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.

As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.

We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.

We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.

Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?

[David Simmonds]

I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.

We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.

All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.

I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.

Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?

[David Simmonds]

I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.

It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.

The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.

The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.

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

2nd reading
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.